Control Through Confusion—

Words you need to know to lingo with the “New Theists”

Maintaining the flock has never before been so muddled. It used to be as easy as swordplay and torture. Now that there are laws against that tactic (and the internet) so the leadership has resorted to volumes of big worded, incoherent rambling confusion. Who but the professional preacher has the time to sift through it all? Never mind that, they can tell you what it all means.

Victor Hugo writes in the Hunchback of Notre Dame, “the priest were in fear because they thought the printing press would replace the pulpit”—people could now read their own bible. But, as Jean Meslier so astutely pointed out, “not only should the Bible have been withheld from the commoner, it should’ve been withheld from the priest as well”.

The only way to hang on to the few threads they have left is to keep it confusing with forty thousand sects making up their own versions with a million volumes of commentary—per year.

“They muddy the waters to make it seem deep”—Fredrick Nietzsche

Here is a list of Starter Words you need to know to be Christian these days; after all, being ecclesiastical takes practice, for simplicity in the gospel is for everyone.

  • Ontology
  • Epistemology
  • Dystheism—personal favorite
  • Ecumenical
  • Existential
  • Misotheism
  • Eschatology
  • Asceticism
  • Emanationism
  • Epigenesis
  • Maltheism—God of the Bible

No longer do you need to know thee, and thou art—but you have to be versed at a scholarly level to keep up with “The New Theists” and their codespeak, then remember the old as well—words like imagination, pretending, and circuitous. But this will suffice for a brief introduction, if ye are willing.

I do have a question—can we decide to believe, or can we only decide to pretend to believe. Deciding to believe is a choice, which makes it a charade of pretense mixed with hope. After all, the proof is in the pondering, or so I’m told.

If we have to choose belief with (or over) reason, that is nothing more than pretending.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

52 thoughts on “Control Through Confusion—”

  1. Priests, in general, have done a horrible job of conveying the messages in the Bible. As proof, one need only look at the records of the Inquisition. Yes, they kept records of their “interviews.” Whenever an ordinary person came under their scrutiny, more often then not, the person so questioned willingly offered up heretical thinking, enough to condemn them and often execute them. The illiterate had no other source of information than their priests, who were often also almost illiterate, could barely convey. Up to a certain point, priests provided services in Latin, a language most people had no knowledge of.

    had there been no priests and just scriptures we might have been better off as people would have had to work to figure things out for themselves and found their scriptures to be opaque and mystifying.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Latin mass ended just what, 30 years ago? What you say is true. In a documentary I watched in witchcraft, the clerics were able to get confessions out of every accused. People put in that position will say anything when they know nothing. Salem gets a lot of press but is a tiny fraction of what happened in Europe. Tiny.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Jim – The language change was even earlier than that, about 50 years ago. Latin services were phased out in the mid to late 1960s immediately after the Vatican II conference. Vatican II started in 1960 (after years of preparation work), paused in 1963 when John XXIII died, and continued under Paul VI, ending in December of ’65. Changes began almost immediately, and were very drastic and jarring to both the clergy and the lay people. Translations into the vernacular were rushed out, and often were not very good. In fact, they’re still fiddling with the changes today, fifty years later. But it wasn’t just the switch from latin that caused problems. There were far more fundamental changes that came out of Vat II.

        Up until that time the priest said mass facing the tabernacle, with his back to the congregation. He turned around only when the liturgy called for him to directly address the congregation. After Vat II priests had to say mass facing the congregation. That required the installation of new alters and new ways of doing things. The communion railing that separated the altar area from the main church had to be ripped out. Communion would be distributed not while kneeling at a railing but by walking up to the priest directly.

        The mass along with almost all other church services were simplified enormously. “Dumbed down” so to speak. Unless you’ve experienced it yourself you wouldn’t believe how elaborate and complex some of those old services could be. Dozens of candles, incense, special clothes, special bells, wooden clappers, statues covered with cloth during certain times of the year, especially the rituals during holy week before Easter. Every freaking year I got ‘volunteered’ for holy week services because I was the only server who knew the rituals and latin responses for all of the various services. Some of them ran 3 or more hours. By Easter Sunday morning I was so exhausted I could hardly crawl out of bed to get back to church to serve for sunrise mass which I also got ‘volunteered’ for.

        I remember being enormously irritated by the change at the time. Mostly because they’d been teaching me latin since I’d been about nine years old and now they were throwing it all out the window.

        There is still a huge amount of controversy about the Vat II changes. It certainly was jarring. Things like the holy week rituals, the full blown latin high mass and things like that were pretty much full blown theatrical shows and really rather impressive. And all that was replaced with little more than a middle aged guy wearing a dress mumbling prayers that sounded like they’d been written by a ten year old.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Interesting. I’ve only set foot in a Catholic Church a few times for the village and funeral ceremonies for my neighbors in Panama. Really most of what I ever learned came from anti-Catholic literature about the great satan, the beast, or other derogatory literature. I remember a lot of the kids at school talking about catechism and mass, but I already knew by then I was in the only true church. Thanks Bill.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  2. Hello Jim. I had to look up almost all of those words you listed. And I pay attention in Atheist blogs. So my question is should it be that hard to understand a deity that wants you to have a relationship with it? If god can not deal with us on our level how or why should we be required to worship it? Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well Scottie, this has been going on far too long. If we know anything at all, new fields of study and cutting edge add-ons in the lingo can certainly keep us on our toes, and make the clerics look smarter. We trust too easily and follow too quickly. These are the kind of words needed to explain a complex imagination.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. *Sophisticated theology* makes me laugh.

    As Paine put it:

    “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Ooh, I like that. I am serious about this “field testing” of the words. It is only by un-test it can even remotely seem true.
      The no conclusions part seems to ring the bell of truth here. How long do we give religion to meet its objectives? I think it’s been long enough.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. Amazing. I would never have guessed the soil conditions would be that good for grapes. When I think of Washington state I think wet, thick black soil, sort of Twin Peaks stuff.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Twin peaks was filmed in my old home town. And yes, that is how it is on the west side. Cool rainforests and conifers—dark soil. The east side gets very little rain and dry feet make good soil for grapes, especially with the geologic history and how that all came about. After the Missoula flood 10,000 years ago it opened up millions of acres of some of the best farmland in the world. Grant county (next door to wine country) is the highest potato producer in the world. Plus we have wheat! Lots of wheat. Miles and miles of wheat fields. It’s a diverse area here east of the cascades.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Ooh, and i forgot this other important crop. The Hops Capital of the World is in Eastern Washington. With 75 percent of the nation’s hops grown in Yakima, this year’s harvest is one of the most anticipated by brewers around the world. Yakima valley surpasses Germany in hop production. We are a bastion of micro brews too. Some really fine local beer.

              Liked by 3 people

            5. Is that a Willow reference? When you are drunk I am in charge! Which way do we go? ➡️⬅️That way!!

              Like

          2. I’ve been switching over to WA reds. They are much mo’ betta’. I was always impressed that Issaquah was in the same growing zone as Waco (still makes no sense to me). I need to back for a visit.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            2. Jim, are you familiar with Rice, Washington? My ex-husband’s uncle lived there and we visited many times. He also had an uncle that had apple orchards in that general area (can’t remember the name of the town). Those were good memory days.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. They are. More Baptists in Waco :-). I did know (Preston).
              It seems like it was one of those climate chart things, maybe cuz the first and last freezes are about the same time. I’m no gardener, so I’m clueless about it.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Did you ever make it Sequim? That has a similar anomaly with dry conditions even in the Olympic rain forest. The clouds part at hurricane ridge and don’t come back together til past sequim. Pretty cool. There is a small island just east of there that has cactus on the south side. It’s only about a square mile in size but has its own ecosystem. How the hell cactus got there I don’t know.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Yes, but a drive-by was it Sequim. Been to Port T. and Port Angeles, and made it up the hill to Hurricane Ridge (there was snow and my phone said “welcome to Canada”). Yer makin’ me wanna go back. 🙂 for a visit.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Used to do a lot of boat camping over there. I remember the Yukon Jack too..barely. It is a gem for sure. It’s an 8 hr drive now. I’d like to be a little closer. Ferry boats and great scenery and fishing. Nothing beats a weekday on the water near the straights.

              Liked by 1 person

  4. What was the primary reason I left organized religion, then the god concept? “No signs follow them that believe” but I did witness a whole lot of fakery and pretense. What I did not see was any positive change in ‘them that believe.’

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. We all learned to smile. It’s a “duck and cover” maneuver. Smile everybody, smile. The fakery and pretense hidden behind the face of piety—while the band plays on.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I was doing a lot of personal research in the reality of faith prior to exiting – it was hard to believe (hah!) so many people could be so wrong, but when I got them one-on-one in a booth in a restaurant and asked the tough questions, like, ‘Why did God let your 14 year old die of cancer with an entire church praying for her for a whole year, George?’ Harsh question, but necessary. “George” would shed tears and admit, ‘I don’t understand it.’ ‘So why do you stay with it?’ ‘I owe it to my wife and family, my friends, fellow believers. I can’t disappoint them and leave.’ ‘You’re not afraid of God?’ ‘Why should I be? He does nothing.’ ‘So you’re in it because of tradition, friendship, expectations and not because of some burning faith fire within your soul then?’ ‘I never had any such feelings. I was born and raised in the church and I don’t know what I’d do without it.’ I had many, not as emotional, discussions, one-on-one with many born again believers and not once did I encounter any burning desire to serve God come hell or high water. It was all either very political or a social event. Like a ball game, only no one ever won … or lost. Believing in Jesus served the purpose of friendship and the convenience of a ticket that guaranteed one’s admittance to heaven, even if it was just enough to squeeze in past the pearly gates.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  5. I love that list of words. Add metaphysical. It seems like I have read some of that this morning.
    Warning: when god is removed as god of the gaps, it is up to you to explain every little thing about every little thing, or you get told about the mysteries of god. Be ready! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. “God of the gaps” … I love that title! I imagine a fascinating series of sci-fi novels and a block-buster movie based on that title. It begins: two aliens are talking. “I’ve been to that little solar system, you know. They have a sentient race on one of its worlds that believes in a god of gaps to explain everything their puny brains can’t get a handle on. Not all,but most of them believe in such a thing.”
      “Bullshit! You’re pulling my leg. A world of sentience that believed such a thing wouldn’t last a week.”
      “Wanna put money on it? I’ll take you there to see for yourself. You’ll need to disguise yourself though, they’re kind of paranoid and freakish.”
      “Why would they be scared of us?”
      “Because we’re one of those gaps their god hasn’t been able to explain yet. That puts us on their ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ list. ”
      “That’s nuts! Why don’t we claim to be their god?
      “Some would welcome the idea but not most. For the true believers need to have a non-visible, immaterial, does absolutely nothing god.”
      “Did I already say, ‘nuts!’? What’s the point? Isn’t there supposed to be a point?”
      “Apparently not. Still want to go look?”
      “Damn rights. I have to see this.” …and so it begins…

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

    2. I actually didn’t, but as you just so magnificently proved the mixing bowl of big words puts diplopia in the drivers seat. No one can sort it out, and when you do they switch goalposts and go back to the beginning.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. That is the final straw when your false hope is challenged beyond all doubt. Deciding to believe is a choice, which makes it a charade of pretense mixed with hope. And he know it!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  7. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “Jim says it best.” I’m sorry I’m quoting you but this here–. “The only way to hang on to the few threads they have left is to keep it confusing with forty thousand sects making up their own versions with a million volumes of commentary—per year.”– EXACTLY RIGHT! Nail on the head. It’s easy to control vulnerable minds when you’re promising eternal life through a book that is being written by men who consider THEMSELVES holy and written it in a way that is constantly contradicting itself so no truth is ever really revealed..just “keep up that faith.” …….🙄

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. I like this quote in AARP Magazine about a scam phone call alleging that a person’s SSN was used to commit $10 million in fraud, etc., then they ask the target, “Do you accept all of these allegations under your name?” That’ll put the fear of god into you! What does it even mean? It’s all a big con job. The bigger the word, the faster you should run the other way.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Mostly standard definitions but more like a clever lingo in a recipe where you relate it in scientific terms. Add a teaspoon of sodium chloride and sprinkle C5H8NO4Na (msg) and increase thermal properties to rapid vaporization of the liquid (boiling). Miscible times may vary due to the preferred gustatory perception.

      Like

      Reply

  10. Nietzsche is hardly one to talk here, but it is hard not to love him anyway. He has some great quotes.

    I wasn’t even aware of “new theists.”

    Is this what you mean?
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/02/the-new-theists/

    I didn’t know half the words you wrote but about half of the ones I did know I learned from atheist philosophers.

    “Moral constructivism” is a fancy way of saying I make sh___ up when it comes to morals.

    You say:
    “I do have a question—can we decide to believe, or can we only decide to pretend to believe. Deciding to believe is a choice, which makes it a charade of pretense mixed with hope. After all, the proof is in the pondering, or so I’m told.

    If we have to choose belief with (or over) reason, that is nothing more than pretending.”

    Are you muddying the waters?

    We either can choose to believe something or we can’t. You say if we can choose then all our beliefs that we choose to believe are just a charade? Is it only a charade if I choose to believe something different than you?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well, two points Joe, good evening. As you know this is an irreligious blog, so that’s my observation. Belief without evidence is a feeling that people are abandoning their lives and entire societies over. That type of commitment to an imagination is perplexing.
      The New Theists is my own term I made up because there is so much talk about “The New Atheists” I thought it fitting since religion is the one making it all up, while atheists explain why that is.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I agree we should not liv our lives based on make believe, but I think it is the atheists who are knowingly doing that.

        https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/05/16/dont-fool-yourself/

        https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/03/24/a-life-of-make-believe/

        I know this is an anti-religious blog. If you don’t want Christians to post here I will respect that. I am just giving you my perspective on a few of your posts. Rarely (but it has happened) atheists are pretty clear that they don’t want Christians posting there.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Oh I don’t mind. I learn something from everyone. There have been some interesting threads. One of the reasons I started this blog was to learn why I don’t believe. I’ve found some very reasonable explanations why, and also find a few friends along the way. As far as anti religious, maybe a bit polemic but really just sharing my observations and discoveries. You have an interesting way of seeing the world and happy to have you share that. Besides, you never know who’s reading and in spite of my own thoughts in things, people need to make up their own minds.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Thanks Jim

            I figured you would be fine with Christians posting. You seem pretty laid back about these issues. I am glad, you find some of the views of those you disagree with interesting. I do as well. That’s why I read many atheist blogs and often post on them.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

Leave a comment