A place for a

07.06.2015

Challenging your inner child: Jesus died for your sins

There is the interpretation of Christianity that, to be with God in heaven, all you need to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will be automatically forgiven. Blind faith is too much to ask from a non-religious man like me, but the whole concept may not be as stupid as it sounds. Let’s dig into it.

I already wrote about stopping hatred and much of what I wrote is true, but I made a mistake that kept me from fully integrating the insight. To distance myself from the guilt of not being perfect, I projected it onto my mother. I deduced that she was the invisible spectator judging all my actions. But that didn’t help me, because it ultimately wasn’t true.

The difficulty of growing

Even after three months of training Muay Thai with strong men, I felt a hatred towards their confidence and their disregard for myself. Stupid, I always thought, and pushed that feeling away. They are strong and I want to be strong, too. Everything else is just the indoctrination of a victim attitude that I have to fight off.

It’s not entirely wrong. The victim attitude has to be fought. The weakness has to be eradicated. But you have to do it the right way. And that’s where it is incredibly easy to fail. Miserably.

One of the biggest mistakes, I learned, is projection: I feel this because someone evil makes me feel this. But emotions aren’t implants you can override. They are your own judgments. Your shadow or false beliefs, if you will. Before challenging them, you need to integrate them into your own self. If that sounds too academic: You really have to consider them.

A crisis can force you to be honest with yourself, but so can psychedelics, for instance.

Through this integration, I have finally understood my hatred towards strong men. Deep down, I was convinced that I deserved better than to have to put in effort to be accepted. I did it anyway, but it felt like resignation. I called it willpower, but it was not really my own will – yet.

Thus I so often failed to lose weight or achieve goals. I pushed through, even for months, but eventually I folded. Underneath, there was a voice in my head telling me that it should all just come to me automatically and that some inherent evil in the world wanted me to suffer. Thus, when I fought, I fought out of necessity, not out of passion. I fought to be good enough to not have to fight.

I was never honest enough to acknowledge it. This voice in my head, I thought it came from oppressors – SJWs, my mother, politicians, bureaucrats and all kinds of other scum. I hated this voice, because it was stopping me. So I fought it by fighting these people. It wasn’t my voice, why would it be? I wouldn’t think something as stupid.

But the truth is far more straight-forward.

This inner voice, this weakness, is not an evil implant you got from your oppressors. After all, where did they get it from? And why does it even work if it is such nonsense?

The weakness inside you is nothing but your resolute narcissistic self. Your inner child. It is the thing with which you are born, only to be let go as you grow.

But a child doesn’t listen to reason. It doesn’t listen to power through it, weakling. Yes, you can get the child to obey, but it will do so full of resentment and self-hatred for giving in to the demands of the world. It will be a cynical child that plays by the rules while despising them. It will be only as good as necessary, never as good as it could be.

Thus, what is the right way to challenge your inner child?

Jesus died for your sins

I am not religious and I don’t know much about Jesus, but let me summarize the points I have in my memory:

  • Idealistic even in the face of death
  • Peaceful, offers the other cheek; doesn’t fight back because he is better
  • Pure heart full of love
  • Capable of wonders
  • Absolutely lovable
  • Selfless, altruistic, helps everybody
  • Child of God, a perfect being that controls everything
  • A victim of sinners that needs protection from his birth on
  • Those who disagree with one of the above points, don’t know what they are doing or have lost touch with some fundamental truth

Jesus is the epitome of absolute naivety and weakness, a person who is realistically incapable of life. Jesus is what a narcissist aspires to be, but never can, due to limitations of the human nature.

The mindset of Jesus is not inherently false.

It is the mindset of a baby.

A baby cannot fight against grown men. It has to cry for help. It can do nothing else but endure all the unjust and unexpected pain it is exposed to. A baby must be lovable without conditions, else it cannot survive. It wants nothing but comfort and love and cannot understand or accept suffering, because a baby that doesn’t display it’s suffering would not get it’s needs met. It needs to be okay just the way it is because it has no power over the world; it needs to be perfect. It must be filled with unconditional love and trust rather than aggression – because it can’t challenge anybody. It needs to submit to it’s parents.

Jesus is a grown baby that silently endures. Jesus speaks to the baby inside each of us.

To disturb the peace and pure love inside ourselves is to betray our inner child. To assume we are not perfect is to betray our inner child. To hurt others is to betray our inner child – which can only love. To take up pain in order to satisfy your desires or to risk rejection is to betray the pride of your inner child.

It feels wrong, guilty. It’s a sin.

And that’s where the mentioned interpretation of Christianity strikes a strong chord with me.

Jesus is but one of many representations of the archetype of the divine child, pure innocence and perfection. It is something we are born with. Absolute narcissism. Ego.

Yet those sins are necessary not only to live, but more often than not to find any form of happiness in life. They must not be condemned.

Jesus died for your sins.

Don’t misunderstand that sentence or what Jesus does for you.

He dies not because you have sinned, to make you feel guilty. He dies so that you can sin without feeling guilty, that’s why he takes the guilt upon himself. He dies to relieve you of the bothersome burden of taking care of him and of aspiring to be as good as him.

Your inner child – your ego, in a sense – has to die so that you can be happy in life.

The challenge of life is not to identify with Jesus. That’s easy. The challenge is to identify with the sinner and let your inner child / ego die without becoming all sappy about the loss.

Becoming a man

When I look at that stupid man and feel like I want to beat him, am I a good person? When I look at that girls ass and breasts and imagine to jizz on them and use her, am I a good person? When I ask her if she wants to fuck and she has that hurt look in her eyes, am I a good person? When I push past the pain in the gym and almost feel like dying, am I a good person?

I am not. My inner child feels hurt. I feel guilty. Denying it only makes it worse.

Women don’t make me feel guilty. I do, because I have hurt them. It’s my inner child protesting: I am good! I must be good! I need to justify what I am doing! I need to construct a moral framework that says that this action was good!

My inner child is the source of all my rationalizations.

My inner child loves the Manosphere, like it loves Objectivism. There you go, suddenly you can get what you want and feel good about it. Suddenly, your aggressive sexuality is not an attack anymore, no, it is a righteous fight for masculinity. But for that, you have to turn it all around. To fight for masculinity, for this noble cause, I have to believe that women are actually it’s enemies.

My inner child loves noble causes. I can justify any horrible deed when I am part of a group of good people who have a moral duty to do it.

Yet fucking your enemy doesn’t allow for intimacy. Moral superiority doesn’t allow for kindness. Moral superiority doesn’t allow for respect towards your enemy.

My inner child doesn’t want to hurt anybody who hasn’t deserved it.

All girls are sluts. Really? When I talk to that one-in-a-thousand innocent girl and make her feel uncomfortable with my sexuality, how can I justify that? She has done nothing bad to deserve it, but here I am, imposing myself on her. And my inner child comes protesting again: She’s better than you. What right do you have to hurt her when she has done nothing to deserve it?

But she secretly wants it. She is a slut. The rationalizations again. The inner child must be held in it’s belief that it is better. I must believe I am better, or at least as good as anybody else.

Good enough for an invisible spectator? In the end, it is much simpler. In the end, narcissism is all about asking: If I saw myself from the outside right now, would I see a perfect person?

Most often the answer is no.

Challenge your inner child

To engage your weakness, you have to listen to it first. You can deny it only for so long. You can turn down the volume only so much.

Your inner child is naturally a victim. It doesn’t want to feel nor inflict pain. It doesn’t want to disappoint nor be disappointed.

At the gym, your inner child tells you to stop, to not be cruel, to go home. When you aggressively approach a girl or talk to other men, it tells you to not be an asshole, to make people feel comfortable around you. Or to do the opposite and be absolutely selfish, to fight for masculinity. Or even worse, both!

Your inner child is like heroine, like a cake, like sex. A drug. It just feels great to be good. It feels great to fight for a cause.

Many articles in the Manosphere just never get around to be really honest. They try to reframe it all or even use evolution to justify their pragmatistic behavior as right or good. These are weaklings and slaves of their inner child. Thus, they often play into a woman’s frame. I feel they sometimes try to imitate masculinity just for the woman’s enjoyment.

The truth is that guilt is simply an emotion that you will feel when you are not good enough for Jesus your inner child. Unless you are a psychopath, that is just part of your human condition.

You must incorporate it. You must not do some stupid mental exercise where you put all that perfectionism into a little box you call inner child and then stash it away. It will boil up and the little box can only take so much pressure.

Just feel it. Neither subdue nor amplify it.

The key with guilt is, like with pain, to embrace it and go straight through it, instead of trying to convince yourself that you don’t feel it.

Acknowledge that emotions come with thoughts. When you feel guilt, your brain will automatically come up with thoughts like: Correct this behavior. This is wrong. I am bad.

Fighting thoughts is as useless as fighting emotions – if done wrong, of course.

Acknowledge the thoughts, let them flow through you without imposing a direction and simply question them. Your own mind will lead you to the answers you need in every single moment. If not, you can do it later, too.

Eventually you will ask yourself: Can I really not take it? Do I really have to be that good a person? Do I need that superiority right now? Can I not simply acknowledge feeling guilty for hurting somebody without acting on that emotion or excusing myself?

Unlink the wish to be good from actually acting on it. That is the path to rationality.

Train your guilt tolerance, like cardio.

Don’t let Jesus your inner child be your tyrant, forcing you to be weak, lovable and helpful. Realize that Jesus your inner child is simply a little drama queen that is fearful of the world and needs to be calmed. It will always create some biblical moralistic story out of every little (bad) happening in your life.

It’s the little annoying angel sitting besides your ear and saying: You must be better! Nicer! More idealistic!

You can’t shut a drama queen up by beating her to pulp, but by understanding and taking away her fears. Eventually, you may learn to tell her to shut up and she will. Because she will have learned to trust you. But that trust you must earn first. Consider what that little annoying angel is saying, no matter how stupid it is. Sometimes it may be right.

On a side note – Roosh

Just imagine how useful this knowledge would have been to Roosh Valizadeh on the Dr. Oz show. Even afterwards, he failed to acknowledge why he failed so miserably and blamed his insecurity on being backstabbed.

Dr. Oz is an arrogant do-gooder, but as opposed to Roosh, he had the support of the people in the show. Roosh was alone and was not prepared to handle that. He was not prepared not to be accepted, to be the bad person there. He was not ready to do this in his head: Yes, I (my inner child) would like you to accept me, but I don’t need you to.

Why? I would guess that he failed to acknowledge that he wanted to be accepted by those people in the first place, because that’s the unthinkable, the irrational. Arguing with the heretics? Oh my god. He stuttered and tried to convince them he was doing it for a good purpose. He was so overwhelmed by the situation – for god’s sake -that he failed to even confidently say that he was helping men to have a great sex life.

I was most surprised that the commenters were mostly supportive of him. Told him he shouldn’t have done it, ’cause these people are so cruel. Come on, what ever happened to tough love? Do you want your idol to be a pussy and not face his fears (inner child)?

Your inner child wants you to be good and that’s okay. It’s a driving force of life. But you must not be it’s slave.

To say I don’t give a fuck about you really means I accept that I will hurt my bitchy inner child and that’s okay.

Wanting to always be the good person makes you weak and pathetic. You become a doormat, searching for a good doorstep. You either become obsessed with being a good feminist or with being very masculine, or with being part of a thing like the Manosphere.

But in the end, it’s pragmatistic and hypocritical anyway. If you can choose what you find good, why care about being good in the first place?

Jesus Your inner child is a pussy. It’s upon you to learn to tame it. Like real pussy, slightly disdain and mock it, but don’t hate it. You can have fun with your pussy, but don’t underestimate it.

See how lucky you are to be able to train on yourself!

Hey, you might, at a later stage, try to visualize your inner child as a little Oprah on your shoulder. When you do something bad, she will go crazy and you will imagine giving her a little lollipop and she will me: Oh well, meh.

Look at the picture on top of this article. Doesn’t it eventually read like: Woah, look at me! I’m such a victim! Ah! Oh! Hm. Is that a dick up my ass? OMG!

Such is the nature of Jesus your inner child. Let it die, let it be hurt, let it take all the guilt for the world’s injustice upon itself, and you will be with God – that is, you will have peace.

For further inspiration, I recommend King, Warrior, Magician, Lover and LSD. Input at your own risk.

0 votes

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: Challenging your inner child: Jesus died for your sins | Manosphere.com()

  • thordaddy

    This is the liberationist vision of Christianity, although, I believe you gave a sincere effort in your interpretation.

    The scientist’s “boldest” claim is no empirical (sensory) evidence for objective Supremacy… Perfection… He who wills all right… Omnipotence, empirically-defined.

    The question is HOW can he make this claim? Meaning, IF there is truly no sense of objective Supremacy… Perfection… He who wills all right… Pure omnipotence… Then everything I just wrote preceding this sentence MIGHT AS WELL read like,”Gjdnrnd dnnddnzz… Skeekns… An wkr skisj rhd sjsdn… Oesm shahwejan…

    BUT it absolutely does not read in such a manner… The sensory evidence for Perfection is literally everywhere. In other words, whereas “science” demands redundancy and rejects singularities, reality at the smallest scale all the way through to the universe-wide scale is pure Singularity and no redundancy. So in fact, “science” takes the meaning out of unique phenomena and makes a generic phenomenon called “redundancy” and thus magically makes ALL THINGS subject to observation, measurement and REPLICATION every time.

    • That does not make any sense at all.

      Words gain their meaning through association. You may want to read Language in Thought and Action.

      Regarding science, you are talking gibberish. If redundancy and replication are invalid, how do you explain the advancement of science based on exactly that? How do you explain satellites, smartphones and other technological advances?

      Seriously, I wish you would try to do some critical thinking on your own before posting such bullshit. I find it very tiring to have to interpret all of your vague words, trying to make sense of them.

      Also, what exactly do you want me to say to counter your black-and-white vision? Of course observation and patterns do work, else humanity would not have adapted them. Of course this does not mean that all that hypothetically could be redundant really is. You are making accusations towards science, me, everybody, that do not have any ground to be based on. If you knew a bit about science, you would realize that your arguments are straw-mans.

      Please try to be more concrete in the future. Maybe talk about yourself some, I would like to understand your own motivations. You wrote about having four kids and no wife. That is interesting. Why not talk about that? You are like a robot, repeating his ideology and having no personal identity at all. Ironically, that is what you came here to solve in me.

      • thordaddy

        Tom…

        The black/white divide that you keep referring to does not convey accurately the battling paradigms. On one side are those that are strictly physical and on the other side are those that are physical AND also GRANT the meta-physical.

        From the scientific perspective, a “thing” MUST BE strictly physical to be observed, measured and replicated. BUT, “it” also MUST BE redundant. MUST BE REDUNDANT… All physical phenomena MUST BE REDUNDANT in order to be observed, measured and replicated. Ergo, a scientist REJECTS singularities, ie., unique, one-time phenomena, NOT subject to objective observation, measurement and relocation.

        THESE are the RULES of the modern scientist and the “modern” only means he does not want to be accountable to his own rules.

        PS. You’ve already conceded that “science” is mere labeling of phenomena without demanding that the labeling be correct.

        PPS. Unique, one-time phenomena are singularities. Correct? Do you believe such phenomena exist?

        • You are barking at the wrong tree, man. If you have a beef with science, go solve it with science. Leave me out of it.