기독교 신앙 체계의 심리적 함의

### 신앙의 복잡성: 기독교와 그 심리적 함의에 대해 살펴보기
* 🌧 공원에서 기독교에 대한 대화를 나누던 중 한 남성이 자신의 신념을 듣지 않으면 **"지옥에 갈 것"**이라고 농담 삼아 경고하는 바람에 대화가 중단되었습니다.
* 🤔 지옥에 대한 증거를 요청했지만 그는 아무런 증거도 제시하지 못했고, 이는 **실질적인 증거 없이 믿음을 갖는 종교 담론의 일반적인 문제**를 강조했습니다.
* 📖 제 친구는 예수님을 받아들이는 것은 선택이라고 주장했고, 저는 위협적인 상황에 비유하며 **진정한 선택은 강압 아래서는 존재할 수 없다**고 강조했습니다.
* 🌍 저는 지상의 지옥의 현실을 지적하며 **오늘날 우리가 보는 고통이 충분한 증거**라고 제안하고, 왜 기독교인들이 이러한 가혹한 진실을 종종 간과하는지에 대해 의문을 제기했습니다.
* 🍷 예수의 살과 피를 먹는다는 개념에 대해 논의하면서 **이 믿음의 문자 그대로의 의미와 추종자들에 대한 심리적 영향력**을 드러냈습니다.
* 💔 저는 용서를 위해 희생을 요구하는 완벽한 신이라는 개념에 이의를 제기하며 **그러한 요구의 도덕성과 여러 문화권의 희생에 대한 역사적 맥락**에 의문을 제기했습니다.
* 🔍 이 대화를 통해 정신병이 종교적 신념에서 어떻게 나타날 수 있는지에 대한 심층적인 분석으로 이어졌고, **개인이 자신의 믿음을 절대적인 진리로 홍보**하면서 논리적 조사를 무시하도록 강요할 수 있다는 사실을 알게 되었습니다.
* ⚖ 궁극적으로 저는 신앙의 강압적 요소가 위협을 받는 것과 비슷한 잘못된 선택의식을 만들어내며, 이러한 역학 관계를 이해하는 것이 신념 체계를 보다 정직하게 탐구하는 데 중요하다고 주장했습니다.

기독교의 강압적인 신념 체계는 종종 유치한 협박과 유사하여 진정한 이해를 저해하고 심리적 조작을 조장합니다.

Oh, good morning. Uh, rain here. I wanted to talk today about a slightly different subject. I'm going to talk about Christianity. Yesterday, I was sitting, reclining in a local park, uh, chatting with a friend of mine, and we happened to have been discussing Christianity. They're a Christian, and there were two people who were obviously Christian and happened to pick up what we were talking about and approached us. And the gentleman addressed me by saying, You better listen to her, or you're going to go to hell. And I think he tried to pull that off tongue-in-cheek, but didn't quite come off that way. And I replied, as I will always reply to a comment like that, Do you have any evidence of that? Well, of course, he didn't. And then he proceeded to tell me, to regale me, uh, with the so-called reasoning that I'm so used to having grown up in a Christian town. So, I mean, I marinated in this sort of thing for the first 25 years of my life.

that well at the end of my life I would find out [Applause] and then my Christian friend who tacitly kind of apologized for this kind of behavior which I suppose was quite in keeping with a playground as it was because it's kind of kind of what you'd expect from a five-year-old boy. In other words, uh, believe what I want you to believe or my daddy's going to beat you up. And this is an example of how adults can come to behave in a very unflattering childish kind of way and think that they've attained to some sort of higher level of esteem in the world. And I'm going to make the argument today that Christianity proper, that the confession of faith to Christianity that is essential to actually be a Christian, it's not a nebulous concept being a Christian. People talk about whether someone's a real Christian or not. There's an actual confession of faith. There's a mandate that you have to confess, you have to adopt, you have to

devote your life to otherwise you're not a Christian. It has to do with the murder of Jesus, and I'm going to get into that because I want to use it as a way to get into the complexity of human psychosis and how alluring it can be, but how under examination it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And in this way, we can come to understand ourselves a bit better because I don't exclude myself or anyone from the kinds of psychological forces that provoke us to want to understand more than we do and to resolve ourselves to the universe or to some god or and so forth and so forth. So, my friend, after apologizing for this admittedly odd display of behavior, began to tell me about how I had what she called a choice, and that is the choice to accept Jesus or to go, you know, and go to heaven or to go to hell. And I immediately asked her if she would consider it a choice if I pointed a gun at her and told her to give me my money.

or I was going to shoot her, and she kept emphasizing that it wasn't the same thing and that I had a choice. Now keep in mind, no one has ever had any evidence of hell other than on the earth, and I said that to these Christians when they were there. I said, You know, because I already knew what they were going to say when I said, 'Do you have any evidence of hell?' They were going to say, as they always do, 'Well, you'll find out one day.' And I said, 'Well, there's quite enough hell on the earth as it is,' and not all the Christianity in the world and not all the Christians seem to have mitigated for that or even seem in great danger of even thinking that they should, which is, I think, more to the point, and not just of Christians but say all of us. And then they proceeded to regale us with the notion that, well, a Christian after they're saved, they have so much to look forward to that it's a hell for them just to stay

here under any conditions just you know let's just take this on board for a second and I simply said well you know there are places in the world that are certainly evidence of hell if you want to describe hell at all you know maybe there's places in the middle east for instance and they at least conceded to this point they had the humility to kind of shut up at that point which is a good sign they haven't completely lost their faculties that's good it's also indicative of a psychosis which allows someone to make a pilgrimage from the realm and the value of storytelling that we all need and enjoy for reasons that we can't possibly explicitly empirically explain into the realm of equating a belief with reality and even so much as to take your monopoly on reality and attempt to coerce or threaten other people to believe what you do irrespective of any due course to logical argument or evidence or facts or even just the etiquette of polite society and we permit this as human beings um in many senses we have to permit this.

if someone comes up to me and yells profanities at me, there's really not much I can do. And if a Christian comes up to me and says, You're going to go to hell, there's not much I can do. I'm not going to change that person's mind. So, I'd like to discuss the enthralling prospect of accepting the blood of Jesus, eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, who he is as depicted in the Bible, irrespective of who he may actually be, and why this might be so alluring for people, and why I think it is so dangerous for the world, whatever the merits of a religion may be. Now, right away, a lot of sort of progressive, more liberated Christians will say, I'm not into drinking the blood, and I'm not into eating the flesh. The whole point of the catechism, of the confession of faith, of Christianity, is that the death, the bloodletting, the torture, the public humiliation of a

person in Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nathanism transmits to your blood, into your heart, to your physical and existential being, a value without which you would be consigned to a torturous eternal oblivion. It affects real things. His flesh is not symbolic; it's real flesh. And he himself in the Bible says at the Passover supper, the first Passover supper, Eat this bread, it is my body; drink this wine, it is my blood, right? And this is a man who turned water into wine. It wasn't symbolic wine; it was real wine. And so if he says that the wine is blood, it's not symbolic blood; it's real blood. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if someone's death is transmitting physical and spiritual changes to your being, that that is the same level of effect as if it were transmitted by drinking their blood or eating their flesh. It's not really much of a step beyond their flesh and blood is being incorporated, the value of their flushing.

bed is being incorporated into your physical and spiritual being, and all incorporation of that nature involves the consumption of these things. You are taking them in; you are receiving their value; you are incorporating into the being. So, a Christian has to drink the blood and eat the flesh on more than just a symbolic, if not in the most literal sense of the term, of drinking human blood. Now, this Christian said to me, Well, he's not human, he said. So, I took a couple of attacks, but I'm going to take a few more here. The first was one of the easiest ones: If God is so perfect and sublime by definition, in other words, no matter what you say, God is perfect because that is perfection, is God, and God is perfection, so good and good, good is God, and God is good, then why, if we may ask, would God need to torture somebody to forgive? Couldn't He just forgive you just like that? [Music] And you have to rely upon the definition of God. Well, God decided to do that, and that's just what you need, and then I

could point out every culture in the world at some point has sacrificed something, and whatever they sacrifice has to be the most perfect thing, the most perfect goat, the most virgin child. And so it's not out of step with precedent that Jesus would be the most perfect human. The very nature of a sacrifice, by definition, makes it necessary that he is the most perfect, so perfect that he's perfectly human, and he's superhuman, and he's divine, and the so-called Trinity. So right, so we're operating with precedent. The sacrifice is not as unique as Christians would like to think it is. It's sort of like different cultures drinking different liquids at parties throughout history and then saying your liquid is the only divine liquid, and only by drinking this liquid are you going to get intoxicated. Nothing else is the real intoxication. You can argue that all you want, you can say that all you want, but nobody in their right mind is going to believe you. Unique as it is, it's operating with a precedent. So if you even remotely

consider yourself Christian. You have confessed the necessity demanded by the very first breath of every infant child born since about 30 A.D. to torture, murder, and consume the flesh and blood of arguably the most perfect child, the most perfect human, and the most divine god in order to affect a status to clear a debt, failing which you would be condemned to suffer in this world and any other world forever without cease, and that's the only provisions made by the most wonderful, perfect, intelligent god in the universe for dealing with any mistakes or sins that you or your ancestors may ever have made. So let's just be clear about that. So right away we really don't have to argue anything, just the confession of faith, I think when spelled out and I think in as honest a way as possible, because religions have a way of obfuscating this kind of thing and selling it, because that's what it is, it's selling psychosis. Psychosis always wants to sell itself, it has to, the very nature of psychosis.

brain's ability to protect itself chemically and developmentally from pain has to sell itself, and that selling is predicated upon dismissing certain other what otherwise would be comprehensive or more comprehensive attention to the symbiotic faculties of reason, logic, evidence, and magical abstract thinking that has its place in the world. But psychosis fuels the pilgrimage from the value of stories that lose nothing of their value from being stories to trying to have the more ambitious claims of upon reality, upon what you should do, uh, and what I call kind of insurance fraud. That is, if you don't do this racketeering coercion, if you don't do this, you've got this debt, real or imagined, and you are going to be hurt, your family is going to be hurt. And of course, the impressions can be so overwhelming and in league, I would argue, with a lot of other neglect in the world, Christian or otherwise, that one gains the propensity to find this, to find this kind of equation, this kind of psychology indispensable to other people. So, it only stands to reason then.

under this state of mind, that you should inform people that if they don't believe this, that they have a choice, which is not really true. Um, you don't have a choice when someone points a gun at you, right? But you do have a choice in the sense that you don't have to believe that the gun is real, the gun is loaded, or that the person holding it is in any position to make any great um claims about your future as a person. Um, and so that it's worthwhile threatening people that this is something under all normal circumstances, threatening people but not seem good, but your magical story includes a kind of threat, and that it's magical absolves it of a real threat, you know, that you would call the police about. But at the same time, because it's not, because it's more than magical, it's more than just a threat.

Why Christianity Is Fucking Stupid so Useful

Rayn Gryphon

기독교와 그 영향력에 대한 성찰

연사는 공원에서 기독교인 부부를 만난 이야기를 나누며 그들의 신앙을 따라야 한다는 압박감을 강조합니다.

그들은 진정한 기독교 신앙 고백의 개념과 사람들이 이해와 해결책을 찾도록 이끄는 심리적 힘에 대해 이야기합니다.

화자의 친구는 예수와 지옥 중 하나를 선택해야 한다는 생각을 제시하며 강압적인 상황과 비교합니다.

종교적 신념이 현실에 미치는 영향

화자는 지옥의 증거에 이의를 제기하며 지구에는 이미 충분한 고통이 존재한다고 주장합니다.

종교적 신념의 강압적인 성격과 이를 다른 사람들에게 강요하려는 시도를 비판합니다.

예수의 희생의 매력과 그러한 신념이 사회에 미칠 수 있는 잠재적 위험에 대해 논의합니다.

유월절 만찬과 같은 예수 그리스도의 육체적 임재와 행동은 그의 살과 피의 실재를 강조합니다.

그의 몸을 먹고 그의 피를 마신다는 말은 상징적 해석보다는 문자 그대로의 해석을 암시합니다.

다른 사람의 살과 피를 자신의 존재에 통합한다는 생각은 예수님의 희생이 영적, 육체적으로 미치는 심오한 영향을 강조합니다.

모든 문화권에는 가장 완벽한 존재나 사물을 제물로 바치는 희생의 역사가 있습니다.

예수를 가장 완벽한 인간 희생 제물로 여기는 개념은 역사적 선례를 따르기 때문에 독특한 것은 아닙니다.

한 번의 신성한 희생으로 모든 죄와 실수를 씻을 수 있다는 생각은 논란의 여지가 있지만 기독교의 핵심 교리입니다.

통증 및 조절과 뇌의 복잡한 관계

고통으로부터 뇌를 보호하는 뇌의 자기 보호 메커니즘은 포괄적인 추론과 논리를 무시하는 것을 포함합니다.

정신병은 강압적인 심리로 이어져 개인이 부채감과 위협을 느끼게 하고, 종종 자신의 신념과 선택을 조작하게 만들 수 있습니다.

이러한 역학 관계는 다른 사람에게 강력한 영향력을 행사하여 실제 위협과 상상의 위협 사이의 경계를 모호하게 만듭니다.