Theological Variance

We reject the proposition that the phenomena that have led most of the people in the world to hold religious beliefs are just cognitive distortions.  There's something there, but it is indeed subtle.

 

This packs two ideas in.  First is that all the world's vast majority of religious believers have a shared reason for arriving at religious beliefs (however you may define that) and second that the cause of those beliefs (however mistaken their conclusions) is something real, something outside the mind.  I say "arriving at" rather than "inventing" or "creating" or "accepting" because many people seem to adopt religious beliefs based on second hand evidence (or thirtieth or one thousandth hand).  The creators of religions are inspired by real phenomena and I suggest that many adherents accept religion without such inspiration but later encounter direct confirmation.  At any rate, there's something real in the world inspiring people to believe in religion, though some people do just accept what they're told without ever personally encountering it.   It tends to happen more once you know it's there because that's when it's more likely to have an effect (my theory) or because of confirmation bias (the standard facile explanation).    It can make a point of persuading you if it wants to.  

​

The fact that God is prone to prefer to use light pressure over a long term, rather than lots of dramatic miracles, doesn't mean God is weak.   Are tree roots weak?  Is wind weak?  Is ice expansion weak?  Is gravity weak?  Now, what if they were smart to boot? Really smart and all knowing?  We're dealing with something that shapes every detail of the timeline with intent.  

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

We reject doctrines that distort justice. These include the ideas of original sin, submission to abuse (turning the other cheek and loving your enemy), substitutional atonement, moral scores inherited from past lives or ancestors, and disproportionate afterlife consequences (especially eternal ones).  Forgiving evil encourages it.  Impacts matter, not internal purity or lip service to orthodoxy.

 

So, something inspires people and they create religions.  While those religions and this religion are talking about the same thing, our doctrines differ in many ways.    First on the chopping block is injustice.  Many traditional religions are famous for claiming God is just, but their doctrines are very much about promoting injustice.  I don't believe God cares about justice for its own sake, but humans find it instrumental.  It something simple enough for us to manage.   

 

And the first type of injustice we'll address is this notion of inherent human sinfulness.  Our character is to be leadable, so is that sinful?  You can't inherit sin, especially from the first humans ever.  Humans are not inherently sinful, and if they were it wouldn't be their fault because its inherent like the tendency of cats to torment mice.  You can't be against yourself both ways.   If sinfulness is inherited it's not our fault and if we learn it it's not our fault.  Who cares whose fault it is, the point is to focus on not doing it.  God is about results going forward.  Call that "forgiveness" if  you like. 

 

Original sin is a horrible idea and substitutional atonement is a worse one.  Basing a religion on considering people OK because they accept someone else taking their own rap is about the most disgusting thing ever.   It's about as opposite as  you can get.  All I can say on that.  

​

Turning the other cheek and loving your enemy are bad ideas.  If someone is hurting you they will hurt others, and it is your duty to the common good to make sure crime doesn't pay.  Sucking it up is an abandonment of responsibility. 

 

Eternal hell is disproportionate for anyone, no matter how evil.   Infinite things make finite things of any magnitude relatively non existent.  Infinite punishment is arbitrary and unjust. 

 

Now, they'll argue that hell is not punishment, it's just a metaphor for being separated from God and that's what happens when you don't nail up Jesus quick enough.  "Zeus can do it remotely."  And wait, I thought we were already separated from God if we don't come to the Lord by way of Christ.  That's why we can't do anything right on our own if we aren't Christians.  So we're separated from God until we accept Jesus, but  I don't find myself in hell now.  Apostasy from Christianity actually made me closer to God.  God isn't anything like all that.  I'm right and they're wrong.  No nicer way to put it.  "Wrong" is a broad category that includes "lying."  But is it a white lie to say "there are different levels of understanding" for nobles and peasants, as traditional religion's intellectuals have done?   Who knows intent, but effect is to cultivate an attitude of someone else taking responsibility for your sins, to teach the habit of using magic words instead of real results, and to demonstrate the use of intimidation and deception to motivate "moral" behavior.  But  yes, some Christians are very good people.  And the sun came up after you did your ritual.  I'm in awe.  Yes, some people are always very good people.  I've been picking on Christianity largely because it's intrinsically about injustice on purpose.  With other faiths it's more of a side effect.  Also, yes, the advanced West is relatively pleasant and also full of Christians.  That doesn't tell us about what Christianity does because Christianity didn't do it.  The enlightenment did, and that was a product of the 30 Years War, which broke religious monopoly so brands had to compete, much as with the Islamic Golden Age which resulted from competing varieties.  The kind of society monolithic Christianity intrinsically produces is demonstrated by medieval Europe.     

​

We reject the idea that God has delivered a final message through any human being.  God can speak directly any way God wants, and since the world is never finished God's word to us is never complete.  We speak to God through our actions and we perceive God through the world we encounter. Often this is essentially a things-to-do list.  

​

Do people have things to teach each other about God?  Of course, if not then I would have to shut up.  Saying "I have something to say," is not the same as saying, "I have the only thing worthwhile to say."  Anyone tuning in to God is prone to perceive the feeling God has for Itself and mistake it for their own self concept.  Further, you just know you are right and will tend to have the tunnel vision to think your right is the only right.   It's important to put yourself in perspective.  God can speak to anyone, but many people don't have the mental structures to understand, they don't have the language yet.  They've been focusing on different things perhaps.  The interpreter should not take too many liberties or judge other interpreters from a place of selfish partiality.  And the intent should always to be convey the truth as nearly as possible, not to abuse your position to knowingly spin fibs.   Give truth brutally.  

​

We speak to God through our actions and perceive God through the world we encounter.  That's worth repeating, right up  there with "we are in time, not Heaven."  Everything you encounter was sent by God.  God is a surround sound all senses livestreamed three d experience all the time for everybody.  Your body and mind are the controllers.  You've been lied to that God is only accessed through intermediaries like building a ship in a bottle with long tweezers.  You can't not be in constant intimate interaction with God.  You might not fully understand it, but maybe that's just a language problem.  

​

The problem with traditional religions is not really internal culture.  It's foreign policy.  They push short sighted small mindedness and oppose any thinking and knowledge their originators could never have anticipated.  In essence, they cannot see beyond themselves.  That's why they project an end of the world in the future.  An end of their world, maybe.  They are finite because they don't worship the infinite, really.  That's why they must anthropomorphize, and magnify tribalism and break the looms.  But the creator is not going to destroy the world for  their convenience.  

​

Am I contradicting myself when I say "interventions try to be efficient" but also "God can speak any way God wants"?  Wouldn't using prophets be efficient?  Not really.  Interventions work better at low density where they can't interfere with each other.   It's more efficient to talk to many people in little miracles than to a representative in a big one.

​

We reject the value of prayer separate from ordinary life.  God is all-knowing, so we can tell God nothing.  God is as powerful and righteous as it is possible to be, so we don't selfishly ask God to change things on our account.  Regarding God, we are here to serve, not to be served.    

​

We speak to God through our actions and perceive God through the world we encounter.     You can't not be praying.  You are praying right now, and  you have always been praying, and you will always be praying.  The conceit that we can inform God of our feelings or inform God of our problems is laughably ignorant.    The notion that we can ask God to change the course of things to serve our personal partial interests is more than ignorant, it's selfish.  It's a good thing God doesn't take orders like that.   Only one prayer is acceptable:  "Your will be done."  So, now God has your permission.

 

But its true that in some things we rely on God to do the work.  God has the omniscience, and is responsible for handling things we can't know without it.  But we have a responsibility to lighten that load too.  

​

​

----

A word here about artificial intelligence.  You can fake it by wearing glasses and rubbing your chin a lot and using big words  you don't understand.  But people who are really smart will see right through you.  Be warned.  

​

​

​

​