The Bizarre Logic in How Believers
Relate to God
First off, this post isn't intended to annoy believers. (Though odds are it will.) I'm not one of those atheists/agnostics/non-believers/heathens/whatevers who take the intellectual high ground over believers, then devise ways to piss them off from their lofty, "superior" heights. I used to be that way when I was much younger.
There is nothing superior about not believing, anyway. I envy (true) believers, for their ability to be irrational, and I'm not saying this sarcastically. I envy most fantasists. Whoever can suspend logic to the extent that they can believe in an omnipotent creator - and actually believe that he is represented truthfully by a non-profit/idealistic religious organization - might be blessed with more contentment than those who can't: very broadly, generally speaking, obviously. Even the most miserable believers might be even more miserable without this crutch.
Besides, atheism isn't all sugar and science-candy: it can lead impressionable, confused, unstable, dim, young, arrogant minds towards nihilism, communism, feminism and other idiotic, hip, quasi-intellectual, nonsensical isms. Some people turn away from religion only to find "truth" in laughable alien invasion theories. These UFOlogist nitwits then actually start feeling superior to believers - when in fact alien worship is almost as cretinous as any other.
Speaking of truth, nihilists, for example, may be (much) more right about certain things than Bible-thumpers and Quran-devotees, but what do they gain from it? Truth? What can they do with this truth?
Wipe their asses with it, that's what. Besides, probably nobody is even remotely close to "the truth", and non-believers are in all likelihood only slightly less distant from "the truth" than religious people.
Atheism is vastly overrated within "intellectual" circles: all it means is negation of all the bullshit that stems from religions. It isn't an explanatory ideology in and of itself. Just because you were able to connect two dots, i.e. you realized that something so obviously stupid is stupid, doesn't make you a brainiac, let alone an intellectual. All it means is that you're - maybe - somewhat more insightful than most religious people, more rational; it doesn't mean you've invented the wheel, which is how some pompous atheists behave, especially young people: the moment they join the atheist camp they start behaving as if they'd solved all the riddles of the universe! Youth is hilarious that way.
The reason I'm so cautious about describing atheists as more rational or intelligent than believers is due to what I'd already discussed in my Marxism: Guide for Gullible Westerners post: that the majority of atheists seem to be communists i.e. they'd merely switched religions, deciding to replace the conventional religion they were handed to at birth with a more politically-correct, modern, slightly less metaphysical one: this decision actually makes you worse than the typical Bible fan, because some Bible fans at least recognize and freely admit that they believe in magical worlds, whereas communists never do. (Except for ex-communists, those that came to their senses and landed back on planet Earth.) Commies perceive themselves as rational and scientific, which is ironically the polar opposite of where they stand intellectually. Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the source of all knowledge and righteousness... Atheists are a bit like that monkey who can suddenly think: they immediately convince themselves that they're "the shit".
 |
| Atheistic arrogance, self-importance, stupidity, sense of superiority - and delusion - all rolled into one. Hemingway was a Marxist, so thanks, Ernie, for providing me with an ideal example of what I'm talking about. A stereotypical narcissistic virtue-signaling sociopath with no moral compass - BFFs with mass-murdering Fidel Castro - dishing out "wisdom". Of course, Ernie didn't know that communists are believers too... (Sort of the way lunatics aren't aware of their own insanity.) In these posh left-wing circles fanatical Christian belief is considered idiotic, while fanatical belief in a totally flawed, almost metaphysical, political ideology is considered intellectual and lofty. Hilarious. |
The fact that probably 99% of the world's population are either believers, alien worshipers or communists - i.e. religious - is no coincidence. It tells us something crucial about human nature. It tells us that we are genetically programmed to hope, to indulge in waves of unchecked, almost limitless optimism. Hope exists everywhere and in everyone who has despair, and there is plenty of despair all around us.
As long as there is despair there will be hope, and as long as there is hope there will be irrational beliefs. In plentiful supplies.
Hope is the cousin of a coping mechanism that protects us somewhat from the harshness of reality: denial is the one thing literally all humans practice, even I. But as so many useful things, it is a two-edged sword: it allows us to cope better with life, but it also leads us astray (especially the very dumb/naive segments of populations), for example into extremist hence self-destructive ideologies. Commie cretins are convinced that they are "above" the "religious plebs", when in fact the two demographics are in many ways carbon copies of each other, with their shared disease (extreme denial) merely manifesting itself somewhat differently, into different religious beliefs i.e. differing types of delusions.
Nevertheless, the topic I discuss here is not communists and why they are completely retarded. (I'd already done that on numerous occasions.) I am analyzing the relationship, or to be precise the perceived relationship, that believers have with this imaginary, non-existent uber-pope that they are convinced (?) completely dominates their lives - but perhaps even more importantly their afterlives.
Believers accept the existence of this imaginary friend/boss/overlord/master/adviser/mentor/cosmic-guru, and then some of them create a rather fascinating illusion of actually having a personal relationship with this elusive being. (So shy that it never even bothers to physically show itself to its flock, because it "wants to test their faith" or some such far-fetched, self-serving, completely absurd rationalization.)
By actually creating a personal relationship with a non-entity, these believers essentially become voluntary schizophrenics. It's a conscious decision to accept "a voice", or at least a "vague presence", of an imaginary being. It's a sort of small (or large) step towards madness. That's partly why the most fervent believers are often termed as "religious nuts". Because many of these zealotards are literally nuts, or borderline insane.
Born-again Christians are one such demographic. Jehovah's Witnesses are another. (I'm not sure if most of them "speak to God" but they're definitely nuts enough to do so if they so choose.) Not to mention Islamic suicide-bombers who probably have at least 56 ridiculous if-only-I-could-be-a-fly-on-the-wall type of "conversations with Allah" during the last 48 hours of their pointless, useless, retarded lives...
And let's not omit rabid SJWs. They are the absolute same, probably even worse.
When a child has an imaginary friend, some parents might start worrying about his mental health. But when that same kid grows up to have a "personal relationship with God", no believer questions his sanity. A bit of a double standard there... Why not just assume that the kid's imaginary friend is God? An angel, at least? Does God not like children? Why wouldn't he speak directly to kids as well as adults? Are kids not human? After all, he looks a lot like Santa Claus, at least the Christian one does...
Yes, some hardcore believers actually claim to speak to God, regularly even, daily. He is their imaginary friend. Not through a priest via a typically dull sermon or chant, but directly. A monologue perceived by the believer to be a dialogue: quite a fascinating phenomenon. Self-hypnosis to some extent?
There is no question that only people with a mental dis-balance, or at least a potential for moderate or serious mental illness, can reach that level of self-deception - or drop to it, depending on how you choose to view this.
How can a slave possibly love its master?
Let's get this straight. The believer never picked his master, i.e. God, and his happiness and existence fully depend on this (arrogant) all-powerful being, hence this must be the most clear-cut example of a master-slave relationship of all time.
The being that gives you floods, earthquakes, and/or starvation (and plenty of other nastiness you're all familiar with) is the same being that you are supposed to love: how does that even work? On a masochistic level this would make perfect sense.
"Oh my Lord, you torture me so, as you should, and am I ever glad to have thee piss on me and most of my efforts by giving me pointless obstacles that constantly test me despite my obvious slavish devotion. Oh Lord, thou arst so wonderful in your generous offerings of almost unbridled sadism due to your continual paranoia that I, your meek slave, am not quite as obedient and as full of love toward thee as you wish me to be. You basically don't trust me when I grovel, because clearly you are incapable of reading minds, which means you are not really omnipotent - which in turn means that you will now punish me yet again, this time for insulting thee, my Lord, for daring to question your superpowers. Please make the punishment at least as harsh as the last time. Make every bit of pain and torture count, for I so desire, oh merciful Lord."
This I'd understand, a masochist enjoying this sado-masochistic relationship between God and its faithful amoeba. It may be insane, but at least it's logical.
Yet the majority of people, believers and heathens alike, aren't masochists. So how could you possibly love a being that created such a devious, brutal, degenerate world? How can you even like this creature? How can you even be indifferent to it? It actually makes more sense for the polar opposite: to hate this supreme being, to curse it numerous times for all his random misdeeds.
The world is degenerate, literally; there's no denying that. A world in which survival - by definition - entails trapping, killing and pulverizing other living creatures, even imprisoning and killing members of your own species. Being alive entails physical suffering, deception, paranoia, hatred, confusion, anguish, terror, anxiety, and boredom: hellish rules of existence which only a sadistic monster could set in place.
If we were to connect Hell and Heaven with an imaginary line that represents the whole gamut of levels of quality, our world would be far closer to the Hell end of this happiness/misery spectrum. (Of course, this largely depends on the individual, the species, the era... Not everyone experiences equal amounts of life's innate hellishness. For example, nearly all of our medieval cousins suffered incomparably more than we did or are. They were almost literally all Hell's prisoners.)
So it can't be love. Not to non-masochists anyway. To idiots? Perhaps. Because you'd have to be a complete cretin to genuinely "love" the one who dumped your "soul" (or whatever you wanna call it) into a world as vile as this one - and then proceeded to torture you, to blackmail you into a set of rules that you must obey unless you want even more punishment and suffering. The Bible, the Quran and other similar "mammoth religious manifestos" are nothing but texts that serve as blackmail, a set of rules created to control the flock, to make them behave a certain way.
Lovely, isn't it? The Bible just fills you up with endless love, what with all its threats and coercion.
So if it isn't love, what is it then? What truly defines the god-believer relationship?
It's fear. Pure and simple. Sometimes you pretend to love or like those whom you fear. Nobody sane wants to annoy their jailers, nobody sane wants to needlessly annoy their badly-tempered school teacher who might have the power to fail them. Nobody wants to further aggravate someone who has (total) power of you.
Fear, mixed with a very generous dose of unavoidable sycophancy. Because brown-nosing is a frequent guest in the House of Fear.
Take a person who'd just lost his home in an earthquake:
"Oh Lord, please help us! My house is gone, all my belongings forever pummeled, I am now poor and homeless! We know you are merciful and wise and above all great... Please do something, give us a sign!"
I believe having your house crushed is a clear enough sign, or? As Slayer so blatantly put it, "God hates us all". (A great gimmick to have atheists buy your albums.) If there were a God, he'd certainly have to be a sadistic psychopath who hates us, or who at best is indifferent to our struggles.
This desperate little man is basically begging God. As in almost any master-slave relationship. Begging is a major part of it. A master whips his slave brutally, yet the slave responds with the utmost respect, begging and humouring the master - rather than cursing him viciously as one might logically (?) expect.
(There is little logic in tempting your fate even further by showing disrespect to a sadist so much more powerful than you are, hence the slave's reaction is logical, at least in the pragmatic sense, if not in the idealistic sense. But who has the courage to be idealistic when faced with an all-powerful menace?)
Basically, the man who'd just lost his house is kissing God's ass, pretending he doesn't know who the culprit is, then meekly and without any shame asking for better treatment - from the same divine being who clearly displayed the opposite of love and mercy toward him by crushing his house just hours ago!
Begging for betterment, like a meek, undignified worm. Because that's what slaves do. They have no other choice.
Essentially, that's what the entire God-believer relationship boils down to: ass-kissing. A plankton knows it cannot tame the ocean so it appeals to its mercy. The believer praises the Lord, regardless of whether this meek human just struck a goldmine in Alaska or lost an arm in an accident through no fault of his own. He admits and accepts that God is completely in charge so he'd decided not to anger this deity further by moaning about his master's awful, unfair actions. Essentially, that's all the believer can do.
Unless of course the believer is assuming that all bad things are the devil's work - despite that old contradiction/paradox of the all-knowing, all-powerful God not preventing Satan from having his sadistic fun by simply destroying the Horned One. (I.e. how can God be both good/merciful and all-powerful yet allow for evil not only to exist - but to prevail and dominate? Believers detest this age-old question: it makes them angry like few other logical inquiries.)
 |
| I am, of course, talking about this... A staple from the Atheist Bible. |
But even believers who pin all the blame squarely on Satan must on some level also be begging obsequiously whenever addressing God meekly. Do you constantly beg someone you love? Do you even really need to beg a person you love? If God loved his slaves then they wouldn't even have the need to beg: God would be nice of his own volition.
So at best the God-believer relationship is based on one-sided love. Is begging really proof of a "loving" relationship? Or is it proof rather that the "slave" i.e. the driven-by-fear believer is merely seeking to appease God with what he considers to be the best way to soften God: ass-kissing?
Seems like it.
Maybe some people reject religion primarily because they are repulsed by having to behave like a meek slave? Maybe they actually want to believe and can believe but can't bring themselves to be put into such a humiliating, subservient position. People with some measure of dignity. Some deists might perhaps fit the bill.
There are certain people willing to believe in a supreme being, but only provided there is no pressure on them to slavishly worship this deity, having to humiliate themselves over and over by begging and cowering. Self-described "spiritual" people, for example, who were/are a fast-growing demographic since the 20th century, reject the classic master-slave relationship of conventional religion for a variety of reasons, one of them being that they reject the notion of a supreme being that tortures/tests humans constantly and/or a rejection that God is even interested in humans, just as they reject the absurd notion that there has to be a middle-man between God and his subjects/creations i.e. the Church.
These "spiritualists", or whatever you want to call them, don't "speak to god"; instead, they blather on about "feeling a divine presence" all around them. (Perhaps they are Star Wars fans.) These are the sort of hippies (for example) who claim that going camping is a "spiritual experience" to them, and that being surrounded by raw nature and beautiful landscapes makes them "feel God".
(Personally, when I find myself in nature, I just enjoy the silence and the animals, and especially the fact that there are very few or no humanoids around. It doesn't make me any more or less heathenish. It doesn't have any bearing on my religious (non-)beliefs. In fact, when outside of civilization I get even more confused, if anything; I don't get any "answers", I just get even more questions. But that's just me...) Spiritualists feel a vague connection to God that doesn't require direct dialogue i.e. a monologue.
What spiritualists seem to ignore though is how utterly different their camping experience would be if they suddenly found themselves in the middle of nowhere, far from civilization, with no food, water, shelter, mobile phone or vehicle. In that scenario I guarantee you that 99% of them would not experience a "blissful closeness with God" but sheer terror, dejection, panic, extreme anxiety and depression. Because that is reality. It's easy to glorify nature from the cozy comfort of having civilization's advanced survival-kit along with you: like a car and a backpack, not to mention a mobile phone for emergencies. It's one thing to have civilization to fall back on should the smallest problem arise, and a completely different matter to go back to how our ancestors lived hundreds and thousands of years ago: (almost) completely self-reliant and often with nobody and nothing to fall back on. Those poor bastards didn't have the benefit of a secured existence to be able to pontificate on the beauty of nature. No emergency helicopters for them. Some of them must have noticed the aesthetic qualities of nature, but I presume they were a tiny minority: the vast majority was too busy surviving on a daily basis to have the time and energy to focus on "higher" issues. When you're starving, and a lot of them were perpetually hungry, the last thing you give a shit about is how cute an animal is or how beautiful the landscape appears... That's why I consider most spiritualists to be Disney-bubble naivelings. These are the types that usually lean to the Left.
Speaking of the spiritualist/church-goer divide, it isn't really so much belief in a mega-creator that is laughable and naive, as it is to actually pick a religion then obey its idiotic laws/rules/theories and their leaders sheepishly. At least spiritualists have the sense to reject organized religion. Why the hell would an all-powerful deity even require an institution to act as "translator"/mediator between himself and his puny creations? There is no logical, theological purpose behind the necessity of organized religion, none whatsoever. There is only the very obvious practical/Machiavellian purpose which I need not elaborate on... a purpose that purely serves the middle-man i.e. the priesthood, not the imaginary God who (allegedly) wants to have a relationship with his puny subjects rather than the self-proclaimed "God's servants" that insist on representing his flock.
But how did humans even get to the crazy idea, in the first place, that an all-powerful being would even want to have direct contact with them? Even if we assume that it's true that God exists, and that he created humans, and that he has some measure of interest in their lives, why would he want to concern himself with each and every one of us?
This (seemingly) illogical compulsion, to believe that God would actually bother with each and every case individually, stems from the very subjective nature of each person's existence. It's "I think therefore I am", not "we think therefore we are": a crucial distinction. Humanity isn't some large collective brain, as in some sci-fi novels, that thinks and acts as one, like a swarm. Each person is their own universe, which is a really important fact to consider in not just this, but many other topics. Being this way, each of us alone basically in their own separate worlds, it is completely natural that each of us experiences the world as centering around each of us, individually, rather than feeling that our existence is insignificant, that we are just one unit in an ocean of humans and other creatures. I speak about this also in my Infinity Misconception post, where this idea is crucial to that topic...
As a result of each human life going through an entirely subjective experience, people are far more easily lead to the notion that they are relevant enough that God would actually spend his time talking to them and worrying about their puny little problems and hopes. There is a metal album called Give a Monkey A Brain and He Will Think He Is the Center of the Universe. That pretty much sums it up.
Sure, we can choose to laugh at the monkey (i.e. ourselves, or at least certain believers) for being so naive, but we can hardly blame any individual for placing greater value on themselves than is even remotely realistic.
Besides, who knows? Maybe the fact that I live in my own universe means that my universe is the only true universe? But that's too philosophical a question, and it isn't directly related to this subject, so I won't go into that... It's a fairly paranoid concept but not one that one can ever shake off with total success - if we even want to shake it off.
Generally speaking, not many humans are particularly proud, or especially dignified. Hence why a master-slave relationship with a deity or even a dictator doesn't seem to bother many humans.
For example, I had always considered it beneath me to worship a politician, a leader. I can respect a leader, and can agree with him on most issues, but idolatry just isn't in my nature. It's not that I am anti-authority, i.e. some kind of a narcissistic quasi-rebel; it's more of a pride thing, plus the fact that I am grounded enough in reality to recognize that those bastards are just puny little humans who got very lucky. (If reigning an entire country can even be considered luck: to me personally it isn't. My only power fantasy is to rule the entire world as a supreme all-powerful indestructible being, i.e. I am far more megalomaniacal than "just" needing to rule one country as a mere human, be it even a superpower, but devoid of the essential "magical" tools necessary to completely rule.)
However, most people are like not this. Most people even cope reasonably well with having their boss at work order them around like a semi-slave, treating them less than properly, so why would such a meek, cowardly, undignified person struggle with obeying an infinitely more powerful being than their boss at the office?
One gender stands out in this though...
Statistics/studies show that women - the more "submissive sex" - go to church (far) more often, become religious zealots more often, and are more likely to "talk to God" than men. Women, being less confident hence less proud than men (mostly a result of lower testosterone levels), are more likely to enter willingly and even happily into this sado-masochistic master-slave relationship with their imaginary friend/creator. Women are also generally more prone to mental illness, as studies show, hence more likely to go schizo with this. I discuss some of this in more detail in my Female Masochism post...
For some stupid reason, and quite ironically, believers created God in their own image, not the other way round. How else do we explain God's constant need of being flattered? Hence why people flatter this imaginary friend/master whenever they beg him for something. Flattery, and especially receptiveness to it, is a very human trait; I can't imagine that an immortal all-powerful creator of an entire universe would give three shits about such trifles. Such a being would have to be way too intellectually superior to allow itself to fall into this cheesy trap. As if a deity would have an ego so frail that it could be so easily manipulated by a puny little human and his barrage of useless compliments!
People naively project their own motives and logic on God by imagining that God would create humans in his own image - just because we humans are likely to create creatures in our own image. (For example human-like androids.) But where is it written that a supreme being would create something even remotely similar to itself? Hence why God is portrayed as Santa Claus, in Christianity. Believers need to give their gods a little more credit than that...
Just as God would (most probably) have zero interest in flattery, this supreme being also wouldn't be very interested in listening to the separate voices of millions of Toms, Dicks and Harrys as they incessantly harass him with their constant need for attention, asking for mercy and help. Begging for them.
The nerve believers have to actually address god directly, expecting this grandiose cosmos-ruling thing to find time for them and their comparatively insignificant problems. Humans project a lot, because most of them are too dumb or primitive to realize that not every sentient being is going to behave or reason like a human, hence why they'd invented a supreme being that's so naive that it actually falls prey to cheap-skate tactics such as flattery, which is often just a cheap-ass attempt at manipulation. A god that falls for flattery - and even rewards it - would be a rather laughable supreme being hence wouldn't actually be particularly supreme to begin with. It would be supreme in its powers to physically mold the universe as it wishes, but in terms of personality and self-awareness wouldn't such a needy, flattery-dependent being be rather pathetic and underdeveloped? Kind of like an overgrown teenager bigger and more powerful than all his peers yet mentally just another dumb adolescent.
Going back to love, a person can love a partner or can like a friend, because those types of relationships are equal, or more-or-less equal, whereas a master-slave relationship between the sycophantic believer and his imaginary deity is completely lopsided, absurdly so.
Besides, loving something or someone you'd never even met before? We only have that as of recently, on Facebook and various dating sites, but at least the Facebook "believer" has photos of his femme fatale to latch on to - i.e. something tangible, hence his optimism is much more justified.
One can use love to manipulate a man, or a woman; within a real relationship, between two people. But in order to manipulate the masses, a tyrant (who is like a cheap imitation of a deity) always uses fear instead. If a population is particularly dumb, they can be brainwashed into actually loving the leader (or thereabouts), at least a part of the ultra-daft populace can. But even a powerful, charismatic tyrant is just a human hence relatable to his slavish subjects as a person made of flesh who pisses and shits like everyone else. (Except Gretchen Mol; I am convinced she never does these filthy things.) God, if he existed, would be a million rungs above a human tyrant though - and would not even be human. No puny little human can emotionally relate to an invisible non-human non-entity though. If the quality of your entire afterlife existence depends on the whims and rules of a vague divine presence, then the immediate reactions are likely to be awe, fear and respect, certainly not love.
Organized religion is so narrow-minded in its "human-centric" approach that it never seriously occurred to any of these pompous priests and their self-centered flock that animals might too deserve to speak to God directly. Nevermind the fact that nearly all religions don't even acknowledge the possibility that critters may have souls. Since the three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) completely ignore the "spiritual needs" of animals (don't laugh), then the implications are crystal clear: God is an elitist snob who places "reason" and intelligence above all other considerations. Animals must by definition be considered "too stupid" by God to deserve the special attention reserved for the bipedal morons.
Humans get preferential treatment just because they can talk and think? Several problems with this:
1. Using this logic, dead infants don't have access to the afterlife because they're just as mindless as animals, in fact even more so, considering that chimps and dolphins, for example, are on the level of a 5 year-old human.
2. Many animal species do use language, and some are intelligent enough to display limited reasoning skills.
3. Do very mentally-challenged people not get God's attention? They don't get the after-life? Which begs a further question: since they are of extremely low intelligence are they at an advantage vis-a-vis their chances of reaching Heaven rather than Hell? After all, the complete lack of Free Will eliminates any guilt. Of course, we could say the same of animals.
4. The implication is that the more intelligent a human, the more God likes him. Which would beg the question: how is it the dumb person's fault that he/she was born stupid? And if that stupidity leads a person do wicked/immoral things, then it's really God's fault. Of course, this opens a whole other can of worms: Free Will i.e. accountability, which I won't go into.
5. Animals were created for the sole purpose of being butchered by humans and for their amusement i.e. as pets or to be sport-hunted. Only an extremely psychopathic supreme being would create trillions upon trillions of critters who experience pain and suffering - just in order to serve as mere toys to be used by human as they please. Even Nazi Germany had more compassion...
Certainly there is no other reason, aside from intelligence, for God to deny ants and otters access to Heaven, while focusing only on humans.
Of course, animals don't ask to speak to God. They are innocent "robots" going about their business, completely subject to their God-given instincts, 100% slaves to what they were assigned, to what they are. If anything, animals not having any needs to fill a "spiritual void" in a sense makes them superior to humans. Just one of numerous ironies. Animals never experience anxiety, fear of the future, experience boredom only if locked up, and don't have the capacity for self-pity. Just some of the big advantages they have over humans.
Maybe that's where the explanation lies though: God considers humans inferior to animals hence why they are his favourites?
What about Islamic worship?
If anything, it drives my point home even more. Falling on your knees five times a day - while muezzins holler repetitive ass-kissing slogans over loud-speakers - elicits many reactions and opinions from the objective observer (none of them positive), but the most striking thing here is the utter, unabashed slavishness and devotion of the believer. Kneeling in front of your imaginary deity is tantamount to suicidal devotion i.e...
"I shall kill for you - and have myself killed if need be for your love, Allah".
Love? Not really. The Moslem and his deity have an even more clearly defined relationship than the Christian one. Theirs is even more master-slave and even more openly based on barter:
"I kneel like a subservient, meek sheep to you, my Master, and I do everything else you order me to do, and in return you shall give me 777 virgins when I enter your holy Kingdom, which - from what you claim - seems to be practically a buffet of willing whores".
Despite all this empty talk of love, what Allah and his meek slave really have is an agreement, a contract. A kind of pact. A deal. Their relationship isn't based on love by any means, not even remotely, because Islamic laws and rules are so stringent. (Love cannot flourish within an Orwellian system.) You can't possibly love a being that essentially ties your hands behind your back, handing you a lengthy list of things you cannot do (most of which you'd love to do). It's not in human nature to return such military stringency with love and affection. It's neither logical nor natural.
The believer is the customer, the imaginary being is the merchant. The believer is coerced into buying the product - eternal bliss - because the deity has a monopoly on the afterlife. So the luckless customer spends his entire life begging i.e. making sure he remains obsequious enough to keep his end of the bargain. Fear of eternal Hell/punishment - effectively blackmail - keeps the believer subdued and pathetic, undignified, obedient. It's as simple as that. Allah literally refers to his followers as "righteous slaves" in the Quran!
This submission to the Church hence to its imams/cardinals/bishops/god's-generals is precisely why religion has been the "reigning style of choice" for hundreds of tyrants, throughout thousands of years. Organized religion: an efficient means of controlling a dumb, primitive population - and keeping them dumb and primitive through extreme brainwashing which involves numerous rules of what not to do, because by forbidding so many enticing activities you are automatically instilling fear into your meek subjects, putting them on the defensive, making them fear you. Fear brings with it respect rather than plans of rebellion, at least when it comes to an invincible potential enemy.
But this stuff is nothing new, hence not what I want to discuss here...
Except to mention briefly how cultural Marxism is used these days instead of religion to achieve the same goal: subservience to tyrannical authority. There is no deity involved in political correctness, but the underlining principles are identical: fear and unquestioning submission. There is a tangible fear among masses of successfully brainwashed westerners to openly/publicly voice their true opinions, their opposition to: unchecked Third World immigration, to generous welfare spending for these illegal immigrants, to degenerate/manipulative/dishonest organizations such as LGBTQP and Antifa, to blatantly aggressive/racist anti-white attitudes in popular culture, and to many other key issues - as opposed to merely sneakily speaking out against PC-ness behind the "safety" of their computers. We speak out on the internet because we feel much more protected there, precisely because we are put on the defensive by the maniacal, zealous, Fascist-like Antifa/SJW/Anti-Racism sociopath crusaders. This is why the internet's status as a the last bastion of freedom of speech is being undermined, why internet freedoms are under such relentless attack from freedom-hating uni-opinion/unigender leftists.
The Islamic God-believer relationship is based on pure fear, the sheer terror of not getting those 777 (blonde) virgins i.e. to miss out on an eternity of f**king whores - and ending up being tortured for an eternity instead. An "all or nothing" kind of choice. A choice between pure bliss and pure horror. Guess which option the fearful herd will rush towards...
These virgins have to be whores, by definition, since their duty is only to please horny Arabs. Heaven as one large, eternal bordello? Well, I've heard of dumber things... almost. I have no clue though which specific rewards female believers are promised, since Islam almost solely focuses on rewards for the men... (Unsurprisingly, since horny, hypocritical men wrote the Quran.) Perhaps all women go to Gehenna? Who knows. I've never read the Quran, but I do know it hates women.
All joking aside, Islamic women are promised heavenly rewards too. However, they don't get 777 male studs/stallions (which would be only fair). Why not though? Presumably because Islam assumes that women hate sex or are indifferent to it? If so, then those 777 virgins must be getting tortured (or at least very bored) by the horny men constantly ravaging them. Women who enter Islamic Heaven have to remain loyal to their husbands/mates - while tolerating/allowing their former/current partners to f**k all those 777 virginal whores! (I know: virginal whore sounds like an oxymoron. More on that later...)
A win-win situation for the men, a miserable situation for the women. Or does the notion of 777 studs lined up to shtoop just one woman conjure too much similarity to a common gang-bang?
Besides, work out the math: if each man gets 777 virgins (or 72... same thing) then this begs the question: where do all these virgins come from? Either the same virgins have to please millions of horny dead Arab men, or different sets of 777 virgins are assigned to each horny dead Arab. Crazy!
If it's the former, then these must be the most hard-working prostitutes in the entire multiverse! They must have vaginas made out of stainless elastic plastic.
If it's the latter, then that begs another question: how come there are a lot more women in Heaven than men? If each man gets so many virgins all just for himself, then men make up a tiny portion of Heaven's entire population! This numerical female supremacy in Heaven, in turn, implies that women are the better Moslems than men! Pretty weird and ironic for a religion that is so openly hostile toward women.
Or are we to believe that Allah manufactures all these virgins especially for the purpose of pleasing men in Heaven? If so, can they truly be considered human?
In fact, (some?) imams claim that Heaven's virgins are not of Earth i.e. they are literally created by Allah for the sole purpose of being sexual objects for Moslem men! This in turn means that Allah must consider his flock to be cold-hearted sex-starved maniacs.
What a glorious belief system! So idealistic, humane, and profoundly spiritual...
 |
| "This religion seems to be all about the old in-out! I like it!" |
Millions of virgins being mass-produced by Allah brings with it other uneasy issues. If they are "not of Earth" then they were never born hence cannot be human by definition. So are dead Moslem men screwing androids in Heaven? If these heavenly virginal sex-workers are neither human nor android then what the hell (or heaven) are they?! I want some answers!
There's more (weird stuff) I need to address...
If each man is promised 777 virgins, then surely they cease being virgins as soon as he deflowers them... So does he keep having sex with them even after they're no longer virgins, or does Allah provide fresh new supplies of proper virgins as soon as the man is done deflowering the previous batch? If so, what does Allah do with the ex-virgins? Does he throw them on a distant "virgin pile" - or does he miraculously reset their vaginas to be "pure" again? If so, would that mean that Allah is cheating by using his magic? Do the dead male believers not mind deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over? Don't they feel cheated? Don't they get a little bored? Eternity is a long time...
"Hey, Allah, my homey... I know you gave me 777 of these sexy blood-letting sluts, and I am thankful for them, really I am, but I distinctly recall already having had broken this one's hymen. I recognize her. Am I crazy or do you keep sending me the same virgins over and over?"
Yes... "my homey". I wrote that intentionally. Because where is it written that the believer has to maintain his slavish obsequiousness to Allah (or the Christian God) in Heaven? We don't really have much info from scriptures about how/if the God-believer relationship changes after the believer's demise and ensuing resurrection. Dead humans resurrecting then suddenly becoming immortal surely must change their status, at least somewhat? They are no longer puny little suffering mortals. They are now equal to God/Allah, at least in terms of mortality hence infinity.
But back to the android virgins...
If the horny male complains to Allah that he is tired of deflowering the same virgins/ex-virgins over and over, does Allah merely brush off the complaint saying he's "got better things to do than worry about your virgins", or does he prevent this issue from even arising by getting these virgins plastic surgery (or completely new faces) in order to deceive the believer?
To deceive them for their own good, of course... Far be it for me to imply that Allah is a deceiver, cheater and a liar.
Or does Allah/God kill or at least punish severely any impudent human? In other words, are believers safe from suffering and punishment in Heaven or can they actually suffer the consequences of - for example - arrogance, greed or whatever other vice is punishable in Heaven?
Or are we to believe that sin is impossible in Heaven? This would imply that dead people change as soon as they enter Heaven: they become more chaste, perhaps even perfect. How do they become perfect? Does this involve a lobotomy, or just a threatening welcome-to-Heaven speech from Allah? In that case no punishment is either needed nor possible.
Yet what if there was punishment in Heaven? After all, didn't Lucifer and a few other angel rebels get banished from Christian Heaven? Sure, they were never human to begin with, but still...
Back to the android virgins, once again...
Does Allah reset their vaginas in a special heavenly clinic? This clinic would have to be enormous; I picture thousands and thousands of rows of ex-virgins, like on an enormous conveyor-belt, with their legs spread apart, having special angels reactivate their virginity through some magic trick. They then get sent back to their "jailers"... I mean the "righteous" horny men who can't get enough of bloodied vaginas - because having sex with a virgin is clearly the height of manhood. Or does Allah at least have the decency to send these long-suffering sex-slaves to a spa beforehand, to let them recoup a bit before being sent back to their sexual master and rapist? Either these tireless "rewind-vagina" prostitutes are ultra-nymphomaniacs, in which case they too experience pure bliss, or they suffer the suffering of the damned - in Heaven! That would be so ironic, not to mention unfair...
In fact, Islamic scholars claim that unmarried Islamic women are promised to have their pick of husband in Heaven. But even this presents logic problems: what if her chosen man doesn't want her? I mean, why should he? He's got 777 virgins! And even if he does accept her, where's the guarantee he will ever sexually engage with her - considering how busy he must be shtooping 777 virgins. So this poor woman, who never married hence might be a virgin herself, might wait an eternity to finally get laid.
I kid you not, but the only concrete "reward" that Islam promises women is that they are guaranteed "great beauty", meaning that Islam considers women a bunch of zombies only concerned with their appearance - just as it seems to consider men to be ever-horny sex-maniacs fixated primarily on screwing (young) virgins...
Speaking of which, I have to assume that these 777 virgins aren't 85 year-old women... In fact, considering the very "liberal" intercourse laws that reign in Islamic countries, many (or maybe even most) women lose their virginity very early, as early as 11 or 12. So are we to understand that Islamic Heaven is full of grown-ass men (who died in their 60s and 70s) molesting 12 year-old girls??? This is more akin to President Biden going for a visit to Epstein's pedo-island than it is some heavenly, righteous place of goodness and high morals...
Nor do I even understand how come so many young girls end up in Heaven... Do Arab countries have such exorbitant death-rates among adolescents? Unless of course, as I mentioned, all these (very young) virgins are created by Allah for the sole purpose of serving as sex-slaves to the "righteous slaves". Which imams claim they are. But then again, what the hell do imams know...
Either way, what a "Heaven", huh...?
 |
| A gift from Pinhead? |
This brings me to another (very) troubling question. If some Moslem cultures allow for very early sex (and marriage) with women (i.e. girls), then the typical Moslem man does not necessarily picture an 18 year-old woman as a typical ideal virgin but a 12 year-old girl. If so, does this mean that Allah's sex-androids are all created in the image of little girls? Again, Epstein's secret perverted island seems to be closer to Islamic Heaven than anyone could have possibly ever guessed!
And anyway, just to side-track briefly, if afterlife is so similar to earthly existence (sex, marriage, lust...) then why do we even have the earthly-existence stage in the first place?! Why not just skip it?
This is the biggest question religions have failed to answer: why even have the brief earthly life stage when you can send all souls straight to Heaven (and/or Hell)? Why put everyone through all that misery? To test them? Test them for what? And why? Why not just give them a written test, like a school exam, instead? So much quicker and less torturous...
In fact, hardly anyone - if anyone at all - had ever posed these crucial questions. If Heaven and Hell are eternal then this brief thing we call "life" is entirely meaningless hence easily skippable. And if Heaven and Hell are types of existence too, then they can be considered as life as well, hence life can't be limited to just the Earthly segment. Hence what's so damn special about life on Earth!
The Quran is basically a big fat male fantasy. It is as chauvinist as chauvinism can possibly get. (And yet, western feminists rarely get offended by it... but that's a whole other story... This is discussed elsewhere on the blog.)
What all this boils down to is that Islamic women get a far rougher deal than their male counterparts. Islamic women should form their own "heavenly union", placing pressure on Allah to give them better conditions i.e. more glorious rewards in the afterlife. Islamic women are expected to be even more obsequious to Allah by having far less freedom than men - and yet they receive less rewards than the men. This is extremely absurd and unfair. In fact, this only stops a little short of openly declaring women to be far inferior to men. And not just inferior, but far less important.
So much for Allah loving all his "righteous slaves" equally...
But I discuss (the follies of) equality elsewhere.
The hell paradox:
About moderation:
About infinity:
Equality & Racism:
Female masochism:
Reincarnation:
No comments:
Post a Comment