Disclaimer on religion

🏷  disclaimer · meta-info   —   by Gerry · Jul 2019 · 1333 words

In my analyses, I’ll often show that central religious names & symbols have been misused by our hidden rulers for their nasty inside jokes. At the same time I think there’s nothing wrong with religions in general, or with people being religious. If you are religious yourself and feel that you cannot accept your religion and my analyses at the same time, please read this disclaimer.

The further you go down in history in your research, the more it seems to become a question about religion. Historic records become sparse, and then all that’s left from earlier epochs is religious scripture. For European history, there’s also a strong “monotheistic” emphasis. You encounter countless articles where the authors discuss questions such as: Was Jesus a real person? What does the cross stand for? Did Moses write the Torah? Were Hebrews enslaved by Egyptians? Were pagan religions evil, for worshipping idols? Were monotheistic religions evil, for abandoning nature?

In think these are all the wrong questions to ask. Worse, authors of such articles often try to tie those wrong questions to the question of faith. They imply the “truth” of a religion is somehow bound to its historicity, and to some secret explanation of its symbolism. I think that’s also very wrong, and dangerous.

I’m not religious myself. The awe-inspiring creation that surrounds us does make me think that there may be something greater behind it all. But as for religions, I’m still sceptical towards their instituted form, even though they are founded on many core ideas that seem true.

I think that religions ultimately do not differ much from other ideologies, or really beliefs in general. At their core, they’re often very similar, because most humans click the same way. No matter the background, we all prefer peace over war, cooperation over conflict, stability over chaos, safety over danger, community over loneliness. As humans, we really want to be part of some peaceful, stable group, and need the other humans around us.

I think that is the real basis & value of religious communities. It should not be some obscure terminology or symbolism. For example: If you’re raised Catholic, you’ll be taught about immaculate conception. But very likely, you won’t feel that concept adds the most value to your life. Rather, you’d mostly enjoy the actual real-life benefits of living inside your religious community: company, stability, consolation, hope, spirituality.

Why am I stressing this? It may sound harsh, but I’ve come to think that religions in their instituted form were created by “spooks”, i.e. secret rulers. I think they chose most of the central scripture, naming, terminology & symbolism to transport 2 layers of meanings: The official meaning is about some actual true & good thing, like brotherhood, forgiveness, and little people prevailing over evil powers. But by a choice of strange words, the texts often carry a second nasty meaning, about how secret rulers can scam their own subjects.

In theory, we could just shrug it off: An encrypted message does not mean that the literal message is wrong. You can take a text with any meaning — even a true one! — and word it so that it gets any second meaning — even a completely false one. So, if you have such a text with 2 meanings, they could still both be true, or both false, or both partly true, or any combination. With encrypted spook texts, it’s actually often the literal text that is true, and the encrypted message is a lie. A good example are commandments which tell people to be good & honest to each other, while the encrypted message tells spooks to cheat & lie. Here, being honest is the correct behavior and cheating is false, so there’s no “secret truth” in the encrypted text, and it doesn’t prove the literal text wrong.

But of course it’s still a huge problem: Most religious people want their texts not only to be true, but to be untainted. I think that’s because with many religious texts, it’s not so unequivocal whether a text is literally true. People are always arguing about whether God is like this text says, or like that text says, or different still. Religious people typically want a big authority to stand behind their “own” argument in these debates, and the scripture and its authors are just such an authority. If we then find out that the authors were swindlers who’ve actually doctored nasty encrypted messages into the text, it takes away much of that authority, even though the text can still be true.

So if you’re religious, or just want to respect religions, you’ll likely find this horrible. Even though I’m just analyzing what other people possibly meant, your 1st reaction may be to just hate my guts and not read anything I wrote.

The 2nd possibility is even worse: If you believe me, the nasty jokes beneath could make you doubt the good message of your religion, and make you question your faith. If that really happens, please take option 1: Simply don’t read my stuff, go on with your life and do what feels more meaningful to you.

But there’s a 3rd option: As I said above, that spooks doctored nasty messages into religious scripture does not mean that the literal contents are false. We can still separate the good things, the truths, and the value of religious messages from the messenger, which is the religious institutions, the scripture and its authors. We have to separate the good parts of religion from the spooks and their nasty jokes, which came as ballast, simply because they’ve controlled all institutions & publications for millennia. I know this is hard. Separating message & messenger is easier said than done. To many faithfuls, the scripture is an inseparable whole, and always true by its own definition. But if we want to really know the actual truth all the way down, we’ll ultimately have to learn how to separate good parts from bad parts.

Religions are not unique in this sense: pretty much all human teachings & institutions are built on originally good ideas, but all have been perverted. That’s true for all -isms: nationalism, capitalism, communism, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism. Today most have an icky feeling to them, but that’s because we’ve only ever known the perverted spooky versions. Originally, all were mostly true & useful core concepts. We wouldn’t want to abandon nations, or liberties, or communes in general, just because they’ve been misused by the spook overlords.

I will therefore continue my research on hidden punnery in religious scripture, and will also share the results. First, because spookery is still very often explained as a battle of religions, or peoples, or races. I will show that this is totally false. Spookery has always been a battle of the powerful against the powerless, cross-cutting all other borders. Second, because the encrypted information beneath religious scripture is our main public source to details about the inner workings of spookery. If we understand those, we can better combat it.

Currently, I am mostly analyzing texts tied to Judaism, because our hidden rulers often style themselves as “Jewish”. But I will eventually move on to pagan religions, Christianity & Islam, and I can already tell you that the results will be the same: All religious scripture is riddled with spooky riddles. Just sometimes the visible narratives has been given a stronger role.

If you feel you cannot stand this, or that the benefit isn’t worth the cost to your faith, you can just decide to stay away from my research. I won’t say it’s no loss, but it’s not a big loss. Understanding the present is much more important than understanding the ancient past. You can read some more of Miles’ papers instead, for a more positive outlook. He is more careful to protect Christianity, and also has a much more humorous writing style than me.

As usual, make up your own mind, and don’t be too harsh on yourself.

🏷  disclaimer · meta-info