Christianity as a Tool of Oppression (new essay)

Post Reply New Topic

You know which post and which points I refer to. It's the same post you have repeatedly claimed to have an unposted response to.


Actually, I think most people would agree that you have not proven the theory.


I really am curious: why do you do this? You propose a theory, and then try to claim not to be a proponent of it. It was the same thing with your fruit conspiracy.

As far as straw men, I think it's been a common objection that your interpretation of Christianity is a straw man, and a rather bizarre one at that. Why don't you respond to those accusations? Those aren't ad hominems at all.

Awsomelyglorious rather thoroughly debunked it in the second post of the second page of this thread. So thoroughly that I didn't see the need to do any debunking myself.

You have not responded to any of the numerous points he made.

Dude, look at page 3!

They mean my response on page 2.

In any case, your response on page 3 was just a massive mis-use of the logical fallacies.

I didn't read it. That way it didn't need to be debunked.

Are you talking about this:

Because that is the only thing I could find on page 3 that even resembles being addressed to his detailed refutation.

Well, here's what he said about his lack of response on page 2: "I'll just leave you all to come to your own conclusions. "

Now if he leaves us to come to our own conclusions, can he really attack us for nearly universally declaring him wrong??

Alright, alright, I'll respond to the post!

I hope you won't get mad, though, since I'm a nice guy and I don't like to turn friendly debates into bitter fights. If I really need to put my foot down on an issue, I will.

First, I want to point out that Awesomelyglorious appears fond of using weasel-worded phrases like 'wrong-headed' and 'wrong to an extreme extent,' rather than just 'wrong.' Indeed, he even admits that he hasn't refuted the theory:

Yet he continues to attack the possible truth of the theory:



It is still unclear what Awesomelyglorious means by the term 'wrong-headed' and in what sense it differs from being wrong. He concludes his second paragraph:



I'll be fair and take a guess at what this means: "Your conclusion could be true, but your argument could still be unsound." If, by that, he meant an argument for the truth of the theory, he'd commit the same straw man fallacy I've been talking about all along. I'm not telling you that the theory is true. I'm simply offering it as speculation.

There are three sides you can take in any debate: proponent, opponent, and skeptic. Since I'm just giving you a theory, I'm not the proponent of anything right now. Therefore, I have no burden of proof. If you choose, as Awesomelyglorious has, not to try to refute the theory, then you have no burden of proof either.

However, if you come along and say, "That theory is wrong, it is completely and utterly false," then you do have a burden of proof. To win the debate, you must show why the theory must be wrong.

Instead of judging the theory to be false, Awesomelyglorious made comments that straddled in between skeptical reservations and claims of falsehood, such as that interpretations were 'probably ridiculous' and 'more false than true,' and that the theory itself was 'BS.' Comments like this can be used to weasel out of an argument and still look like you've won, particularly if you deliberately disguise your position to make it appear that you've asserted the falsehood of the theory when in fact you've remained skeptical.

In spite of this, Awesomelyglorious has at least been kind enough to admit that he hasn't refuted it. That being said, he has spent a good fraction of his time on appeals to professional or majority opinion:



As for the remarks about Christian hedonism and the associated excerpts, I first of all feel that passages promoting universal joy, however good-spirited they may appear to be, don't really disprove the use of Christianity as a tool of manipulation by means of other passages, second, that Christian hedonism, if it forbids certain acts such as the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, will still be insufficient to address the suffering of the less attractive, and third, that as we adapt our teachings away from the Bible we will ultimately have no basis on which to call them 'Christianity.'



Well, it's not. I've expressly stated that my theory, from our point of view with limited information, is only possibly true. If you want to play the role of an opponent and deny the truth of the theory, it's up to you, but you will then have the burden of proof.



'Too' rigid? For what purpose?

'Rigidity' is such a negative term. I prefer the terms 'exactness' and 'precision.' The advantages of an all-encompassing definition of 'sin' would be greater confidence in one's own judgment on matters of what is sinful, less fear of the 'boogeyman torturer,' and an ethical framework that is less easy to abuse by manipulators of the socially unfulfilled.

Without a precise definition of 'sin,' we have no way of knowing whether you're just f***ing with people who have big noses, or long ears, or too much fat, or disabilities, or speech impediments. There's just no way to know how ridiculously cruel you're being to the less attractive, and that cruelty would include God's, if God existed.

This objection can be made to all authority figures who embrace the idea of 'unwritten rules,' or so they are called. There's just too much hidden discrimination possible in the idea. (That, incidentally, is one of the reasons I've rejected my label of Asperger's Syndrome, another being the label's opinionated DSM criteria.)



Again, though, it's not.

If you lie down for a while and think about causation, you will realize that "A causes B" is a very vague statement about the world. I go into this in detail in the sections on the threat of damnation and the definition of sin.



Alright, so we're given a mysterious command to 'learn the rules' and continually make improvements in our moral character, and yet we still don't know if this requires having a small nose, short ears, an attractive body, or undamaged vocal chords. We don't even know what the Hell we're doing while trying to make these improvements, whatever they are.

Keep a clean house? Sure. Brush your teeth? Sure. "Don't sin"? What could that possibly mean? I don't mean to sound offensive, but it is sometimes a hassle for me to have to come out and clear things like this up for people.



In espousing one particular interpretation and saying, "This is true," you thereby become the proponent of a claim, and you have a burden of proof.



To take advantage of them, according to the theory...



It's very simple how Jesus can appear to be on the side of the lower classes but actually be on the side of the upper classes. He can lie to them. He can say, "Look, buddy, I'm your friend, and if you do all this stuff for me, you'll be rewarded. It's not so bad being poor." And that's just what our greedy, money-grubbing, asterisk-hoarding, fine-print-stowing, one-cent-off Machiavellian scumbags do today: they lie.

(Edit: Alright, they don't lie -- at least the government doesn't allow them to. But a lie to the poor to get them to work harder in false hope of reward is also an instance of Machiavellianism and a way of toying with their reward expectations.)



Just on a side note, what's worse? Dying on a cross, or screaming and retching in agony for three years while having nightmares of people singing, "Nobody loves you"? The death of one person, or the suffering of millions of heartbroken servants?



I don't blame anyone for getting a little angry upon reading the essay. After all, we live in a cruel world at present, and an essay written about the world will undoubtedly arouse indignation toward cruelty. I hope I've made it clear that I want to alleviate the suffering of victims and help people be loved in this world.

Right, I care less about being nice and more about getting rid of obvious nonsense. At this point, I don't care about being unkind though, particularly given that I think you are more weaselly than I am.


Not refuting a theory isn't a terrible thing. How would I refute the idea that I am an alien from Mars? I don't think I could, but the idea is plainly ridiculous based upon the information I have. The issue is that this is a matter of induction, so, I can't disprove things that well, and you haven't created a theory that cannot be falsified or verified despite your claims that it can be: "the theory I put forth here may be falsified, or verified." I mean, for goodness sakes, HOW can you falsify a theory like this other than showing how the scriptural interpretations are deeply questionable? And how can you question that to an extent to falsify your idea? Seriously, if we are all just making "ad hominems" then address that problem, and clearly show us how your idea can be falsified in a reasonable manner.


Speculation is empty and not worth considering unless there is an argument. Jesus could be from the moon, but speculation on this is pointless without logical foundations. There has to be some warrant to even pursue an idea. In any case, what I mean is "your conclusion could hypothetically be true, but your argument seems utterly unsound". Not only that, but distancing yourself from YOUR OWN IDEA seems like a load of BS.


Skepticism is mildly oppositional, and as Orwell said, a new theory always carries the burden of proof. I mean, you can detach yourself from the theory all you want, but that is mostly a ploy, as you aren't an opponent and you aren't a skeptic, but you are apparently trying to debate something.


Well, actually, I think you have to recognize that some statements are done with a certain amount of emotional overstatement. If you say "that theory is wrong, it is completely and utterly false" then you have to show that you have warrant to think that. Proving a theory must be wrong is a ridiculous standard and most people recognize that, most people will be satisfied with showing a few of the claims to be foolish and then invoking Occam's razor to clear away that which hasn't been dealt with already.


Well, absolutely disprove? No. Show this idea to be ridiculous? Yes, I think they do, particularly since part of your argument was that "some will suffer and others will feel joy" and you do not invoke a lot of argumentation or verses to make these points. Was voluntary euthanasia a big issue during Biblical times? If not, then how can you say that the Bible is concerned with harming the less attractive by forbidding such an action? Well, ok, but I would argue that this is more likely with your statements given that Christian theology is often based upon a significant degree of scholarship, however, your statements lack any scholarship, but rather are just your personal interpretations of the Bible. In any case, you have not provided any motive for these teachings to be in the Bible, as I already pointed out that the only cause that would push someone to die on a cross to worsen the welfare of the less attractive would seem to be an evil deity. Not only that but Jesus according to mainstream Christian interpretations of Isaiah 53 was an ugly person, which makes your entire theory more ridiculous.


Well... the issue is that your theory has NO REASON to think it is true, AT ALL. This does not mean it is untrue, it means that based upon the current level of evidence, it is BS. I would bet that even if we knew more it would still appear to be BS as well, but I cannot universally disprove it, only claim that it is nonsense based upon the current level of information.


Too rigid to make sense of something that isn't an analytical philosophy textbook(average writings are imprecise to a certain extent) and too rigid to accept that things can intentionally not be rigid.

Well, except an "exact" or "precise" person doesn't necessarily have a problem with fluid concepts. A rigid person does though. The negative connotation is necessary to make sense of the claim. In any case, even if the idea of sin can lead to these issues with uncertainty about sin, there is no reason to think that this was an intentional action to oppress any group of people.

Umm... the IDEA is to get away from a legalistic definition of sin. I even referenced a Jewish scholar pointing that out as a difference between Judaism and Christianity. Not only that, but as William Llane Craig pointed out, the list would be too long(and not even necessarily because of your unbiblical distinction, but also because the Bible explicitly has things that are sinful because of some subjective opinion, as can be seen in Romans 14). Not only that, but really is there any evidence that the Bible's authors intended to harass ugly people? Any at all? Because if not, the claim of eisegesis seems correct given that you are just throwing your personal issues into the Bible.

In any case, unwritten rules is truer than written rules. Which do you think came first? Written rules or unwritten rules? The latter. We only got written rules when people started writing them down, and the first written rules were only a product of what various people already thought was true rather than an intentionally created system as we usually think of when we consider law-making. I mean, the idea that written rules were the only ones that mattered only really became important with the Enlightenment, as the thrust was rule by law rather than men but before then such ideas were less important. In any case, still in many legal cases, the literal written rules aren't just the determining factors so much as common law interpretations, unwritten rules, and personal attitudes of the people who are judging. Is there discrimination involved? Heck yes, but it is also how reality works, because rules cannot include all things, otherwise they would be way too long, but rather some things are assumed and some legal fictions are created to fill the gaps and that is just how reality works.

But it is intuitively considered very basic. You are right, causality has a lot of philosophical problems, but the idea "X caused Y" is pretty basic, I mean, most people think in these terms very intuitively. So, for the Bible to use an intuitive term in a sense that is intuitive to most people isn't a problem at all because it is intuitive to most people. It isn't a philosophy text book after all.


Well, for one, given that "sin" is a term for "missing the mark", I would assume it refers to actions, not to preexisting traits. Secondly, the idea is to be a perfect person, and people are not expected to reach a perfect person despite this being the way to avoid sin, so, how would you really define perfection in a manner precise enough to be instructive while vague enough to be readable and understandable? The entire idea of defining perfection perfectly is ridiculous, particularly given that this perfection can depend somewhat on the person. So, long story short: "don't sin" means "be perfect", and it is a call to all individuals, no matter what they look like. It is also a claim to be perfect like God, and God doesn't have a body to begin with, so he isn't ugly or pretty. It is also a claim to be perfect like Jesus, who may very well have been ugly.


Ok, but I provided evidence from the text that you were ignoring the major part of the text. I also pointed out that my interpretation fits into a moral intuition whereas yours is just "the bible is reflective of evil". I mean, I have shouldered the burden of proof just fine, and you don't have very good evidence that my interpretation is wrong, only a conspiracy theory.


Umm... but why would Jesus lie? I mean, the guy wasn't rich, so there is no reason he would defend the rich. The guy was later killed by the people of authority in his society, and those people never really loved him, and he never got along with them either. So really, you don't have a proper foundation for your idea, just a bs post-hoc explanation. In any case, I don't even see much of the lying you speak of either, as the only thing similar I can think of today is advertising.


The side note is pointless. Particularly given that Jesus was abandoned by God despite apparently being God(I don't know how to make sense of it, but that is the traditional interpretation of the faith and it is probably pretty horrifying) and he went to literal hell for a few days. In any case, the side note is also irrelevant.


Umm... no, they are angry because your essay is BS. It doesn't even give us indignation towards cruelty, but rather causes us to wonder about your mental stability or feel insulted that you would use such BS to attack our faith.(for the Christians out there)

In any case, I don't think nonsensical essays really help the suffering of victims. If you wanted to deal with that, it would be better to help a charity rather than attack Christianity. Heck, if you wanted to attack Christianity to make things better, you could attack the rather passive Christianity that doesn't do anything, but Christians obviously do engage in charity, despite the numbers of self-proclaimed ones that are sh***y people.

Once again though, your essay is nonsense, and most people who read that seem to think that as well.

This is a complete and utter load of BS. Why do you propose an idea and then claim not to be a proponent of it? Such behaviour makes absolutely no sense. It is also incredibly dishonest.


This isn't a mathematical proof. From what I've seen, you just seem to misunderstand proper epistemology and misuse logical principles very badly. The accusation of "rigidity" is valid.

Alright, I'm going to stop here again. Like you said, you have little interest in being kind, and your posts are so infested with personal attacks and appeals to majority opinion that in my time of illness I do not wish to subject myself to it.

At least you can't burn me at stake.

I think it does. If it doesn't, then you need to show that your assesment is correct. By, for example, telling us what these "other passages" are.


1. What in the heck does euthanasia have to do with unattractive people?

2. You haven't so much as shown that euthanasia is not itself immoral, much less that it is so good that opposing it is immoral.


This is a true statement, however, it has nothing to do with anything else you said.


Yes we do. The only body part that has anything to do with learning and moral behaviour is the brain, so the things you mentioned are definitely irrelevant.

We do not need a Bible verse to tell us that nose size and morality are unrelated.


What does clean mean? How clean does it have to be? How many times a day do you clean it? How often should you brush your teeth? If you brush your teeth with the wrong technique, does it still count? What if you forget to floss? What about someone who is allergic to mouthwash? What is the correct toothpaste to use?

"Brush your teeth?" What could you possibly mean by that?


You miss the point. Why would someone die for that? Why would someone suffer persecution for that?

I can see a rich person inventing something to exploit the poor, but a poor person inventing something to make poor people suffer for the benefit of the rich, and then suffering and dying for it? That is what your theory implies.


Are you even aware that Jesus himself was poor?

Are you aware of the incident where a rich young man asked Jesus what he should do, and Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor?

I can only think of 3 people who were rich in the New Testament -- the rich young man I just mentioned, Zaccheus (who got rich by cheating people and was persuaded to voluntarily make restitution), and the guy whose tomb Jesus got buried in. I can't remember that last guy's name.

1 John 3:17 "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"

This idea of yours that Christianity is against poor people is like saying that Judaism is anti-semitic.

I think I'm going to take a break from this whole thread.

Religion has a social function: To legitimize the status quo, preserve the social order and ensure the survival of the "culture".
The whole idea is that the societies rules are a reflection of the natural order of things; because most people believe that nature is normative.

Religion has multiple social functions: to legitimize the status quo and to criticize it. That's because there are two aspects of religion: the priestly function, which you have outlined, and the prophetic function, which judges the current ordering of the world as wrong and seeks to change it. There are other functions, but they are irrelevant for the current issue.

Christianity, as seen within the text, and in the historical context, is born from the prophetic function of religion. As it rejects the current order radically, as seen from all of the criticism of the Pharisees(Jewish priest sect) within the texts, and from the fact that it was a Jewish cult that was persecuted significantly from the beginning and that functions differently than standard Judaism. As such, interpreting the original purposes of Jesus and his followers as prophetic is likely more proper than interpreting them as order-maintaining and status quo preserving as you intend to. Interpreting particular modern groups in Christianity as priestly is likely correct though given that Christianity is now the dominant religious expression. The notions of a priestly and prophetic function though aren't things I invented, in case you question that, but rather they can be found in the 1st edition textbook "Sociology An Introduction" by Ronald W Smith and Frederick W Preston, copyrighted in 1977. (likely others too, but I own that particular textbook on the subject)

Oh no, Refutation of My Wager

I can't believe...my eyes...