Troll In The Dungeon-Part 2

Mr. Alexander is still there in that comments section. And he was extremely rude to Mr. Paladin Christian again. He called Mr. Paladin Christian a troll again. He also said, "Bye, Felicia," to Mr. Paladin Christian. So not cool.

For those of you who don't know, saying "Bye, Felicia," is a popular way of rudely dismissing someone you deem unimportant.

Don't say it to Mr. Alexander (or to anyone for that matter), please. It's rude and uncharitable.

Oh, look! Mr. Alexander says, "Bless your heart," to Mr. Paladin Christian. For those of you who are not American, "Bless your heart" is used as an insult in the Southern part of the United States. We Americans call the Southern part of the US "the South" or the Southern States. The states that make up the South are Virginia, Tennesee, Arkansas, the Carolinas (North Carolina and South Carolina), Louisana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.

And it's clear from the context in the thread that Mr. Alexander clearly means it as an insult. So not only is he a rude atheist, but is also probably a Southerner. Though, I've never heard a Southern man use "bless your heart," as an insult before this. I've only heard Southern women use it as an insult.

OK, now I have to call out Mr. Paladin Christian because he used an Ad Hominem fallacy/attack. Attack the argument, not the person, folks. 

Besides belittling Christians and other people of faith, Gavin Alexander seems to have forgotten something.

Which leads me to talk a bit about Star Wars. Now, Mr. Alexander may be irritated that I'm using another "myth" to make my point. But who cares about what he thinks? While Star Wars is indeed a work of fiction created by a human being to entertain us, that doesn't mean there aren't many valuable insights that we can take away from this beloved sci-fi fantasy franchise. There quite a few valuable insights that we can take away, such as this little nugget of insight from Return of the Jedi:

Obi-Wan is right when he says, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

His discussion with Luke about Anakin's fall to the Dark Side is actually good for the point of this blog post.

The statement "Anakin turned to the Dark Side" is an established and irrefutable fact. Why? Because the narrative of the Star Wars prequel trilogy clearly shows us that he did. The prequel trilogy shows his journey down the dark path, culminating in his full embrace of the Dark Side of the Force in Revenge of the Sith. As a long time Star Wars fan who watched the original trilogy first and then the prequel trilogy, there is some truth in Obi-Wan's explanation of Anakin's conversion to the Dark Side.

Anakin was indeed seduced by the Dark Side. In  Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, we get to see then-Chancellor Palpatine's subtle manipulation of Anakin. He gave Anakin samples of the increased strength and power he could have when he indulges his darker emotions like anger and hate. The first time we see Anakin experience a foretaste of the increased strength and power from indulging his darker emotions is in Attack of the Clones. After traveling all the way to Tatooine in search of his mother, Anakin found her being held hostage in a camp of Tusken Raiders or Sand People. It is very clear she had been severely tortured. Mere moments after he he found her, she died in his arms and Anakin quickly became furious. In a fit of rage, he killed all the Tusken Raiders in the camp, including the women and children.

 
Later, Anakin told Padme, his beloved, what he did and angrily declared that he hates the Sand People. Then, Anakin broke down in tears of remorse. But it was too late, for he already had taken the first three steps towards the Dark Side: fear, anger, and hate. Besides, Chancellor Palpatine would not rest until Anakin's journey to the dark side was complete.

In Revenge of the Sith, Chancellor Palpatine tested Anakin's readiness for conversion to the Dark Side. Unfortunately for himself, those he cared about, and the fans but fortunately for the sake of the narrative, Anakin passed that test with flying colors.

 
But Palpatine knew that it would take more than foretastes of increased power and strength to lure Anakin fully to the Dark Side. Anakin had dreams of Padme dying in childbirth. Due to his mother dying after he found her, Anakin was terrified of losing Padme and he was determined to keep his dreams from coming true. Palpatine used Anakin's fear of losing Padme to beckon him to the Dark Side. He falsely promised that the power of the Dark Side would give Anakin the ability of to prevent Padme from dying. Despite the turmoil inside him, Anakin fell for Palpatine's lies. The fear of losing Padme and Palpatine's deceptive promise that the power of the Dark Side of the Force could save Padme pushed him over the edge. He succumbed to the Dark Side and became Darth Vader.

When Obi-Wan found out about Anakin's conversion, good ole Master Yoda told him, "The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader."

When Padme found out about Anakin's conversion to the Dark Side, she went to talk to him. Upon talking to him, Padme could no longer recognize her husband, for the Dark Side had corrupted him to the point that his demeanor, the way he talked, his ambitions, and thoughts had completely changed.
She even said, "I don't know you anymore. Anakin, you've changed."

 
In an emotional scene of the Season One finale of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Vader himself even admitted to Obi-Wan that he alone was responsible for the "betrayal and murder" of Anakin Skywalker.

 
Though this is not what the Emperor wanted Vader to believe, he didn't need to fret because Vader would remain securely in the camp of the Dark Side for many years to come. Also, Vader admitted to betraying and murdering Anakin purely out of pride.

 
So in a way, Darth Vader had indeed betrayed and murdered Anakin Skywalker.

But on her deathbed, Padme asserted to Obi-Wan that there was still good in Vader. This assertion would later be echoed by her son, Luke. There is also truth in Luke's statement that there is still good in Vader. This is not made evident by Vader's external actions. Even good external actions like sparing Reva's life and sparing a young Starkiller's life were done out of evil motives.

 
I mean, this is the same guy who murdered children who were training to become Jedi. It is made evident by the fact that other Force sensitive characters like Luke could sense the conflict within Vader.

 
(When I watched that scene of the Obi-Wan Kenobi Season One finale, for the first time, I replied with "Not completely" when Vader said, "Anakin is gone.") Even the most evil person has a sliver of good in them. Redemption is one of the central themes of Star Wars.

I know I just said Vader's good outward actions were done out of evil reasons, but that's different because he's a character in a work of fiction. We can discern a fictional character's intention because stories give us a kind of "bird's eye view." But we cannot know for certain what a real person's intent is.

In fact, he'd probably tell me that the false persecution complex is thick with me.

Here's why I don't think I have a false persecution complex. Gavin, by his own admission, is in that comments section because one theist disrespected his boundaries by shoving a video in his face. 

He is rudely replying to those who praise the video and refuting their claims. By his own admission, Gavin thinks he is not required to be polite to people who are praising the video.

One theist told him that he's wrong and he reacts by watching the video and then rudely telling theists that their conscience has been warped by their "immoral" religious beliefs and things like that.

People can have morals that are not based on religious belief systems. I have no problem with people explaining what their morals are and where they get said morals. But Gavin has not revealed what his moral code is based on. Just that Christianity and its God are immoral based on things He "condoned or carried out:" slavery, pillory, genocide, etc. 

So I am not required to follow someone else's moral code if that person has not revealed the basis of that moral code. Even if that person explains the foundation of their moral code, I am not bound to embrace the moral code of someone who is a hypocrite because they said evidence convinced them but then refused to check out some evidence when provided with it.

 I am not obligated to form my life around the principles and worldview of a person who stated that theists' brains are so small that they'll explode if you make a theist think too hard. I am not obligated to embrace their point of view when they said theists will have a mental break down if you make them think too much. 

So yeah, if you think I'm going to change my mind after you've said people of faith are ignorant and dumb, just forget it and get used to the disappointment. I won't put up with being called stupid and ignorant because I believe in a deity. 

 
Here's agnostic YouTuber Joe Schmid explaining his system of morality, "Moral Realism," in this video. 

Notice how he explains why he doesn't observe certain moral rules, but also how he does not rudely write off entire religions as false and immoral because a dogma/doctrine contradicts something that is tangible in the natural world. For example, because the natural world contradicts the Bible about God creating human beings male and female, to Gavin, that brings down Christianity.

And also because he cares about individual human beings, especially if institutions are oppressing them.

That is commendable to some extent. Gavin would get along well with my sister because she also cares about the individual human being over institutions. She doesn't totally eschew institutions, because she knows they have their place and purpose in our world. But she has a special compassion towards the people that institutions overlook.

 
So while I am objecting to Gavin's tone, I am also objecting to him telling us what to do based on his logic. He thinks he can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that Christianity is false, on the basis that the Bible makes some claims that are contrary to what we witness in the natural world. He answers that what can be witnessed in the natural world is essentially natural.

Here are two videos featuring Bill Nye, who I like and watched in school, taking the position that you can't prove a negative because of contradictory evidence. As I said in Part 1, I am more sympathetic towards agnostics because they're not likely to discredit religion over a lack of evidence. But I am willing to listen to atheists who are willing to explain their perspective politely. Let's meet each other we're at and find common ground instead of rushing in with "you're wrong" and supporting arguments.

Since when does telling the other person "you're wrong" win them over to your side? That's right, it usually doesn't. Facts are important, but it's how you present them that's equally important.

So you cannot dispute that the Bible makes demonstrably false claims about the natural world on the basis that intersex people exist. Gender identity is defined by factors other than genitals. Gavin can argue based on his logic until he's blue in the face, but people are going to believe what they believe regardless of what he has to say.

 
He can present all the logical arguments that Christianity is homophobic all he wants, but I am not obligated to adopt his viewpoint. 

He can present evidence that people are deconverting from Christianity, becoming non-believers, and that they're happy as non-religious people, but I can do the exact opposite and present evidence that shows the percentage of non-religious people who are miserable.

 
So Gavin can present logic all he wants, but his direct, tell-it-like-it-is approach is not going to convince me. As a former Christian, he probably understands where we're coming from, but he won't show it. By using un-sugarcoated logic, Gavin comes across as rude, cold, and grating.

In fact, he has explicitly said that he is not obligated to be polite to people who praise the video. Here's a clip from an episode of Downton Abbey to show why his mentality is flawed.

Man, that was an unpleasant scene. Miss Bunting is a socialist so that's why she hates aristocrats. While her opinions were valid, she was still disrespectful to her host.

  Gavin exhibits the attitude as Miss Bunting did except his can be summed up as "I am not obligated to be polite to people who praise this video."

Even if someone is engaging in injustice whether that injustice is real or perceived, you should still treat them with respect. It's OK to be angry at injustice. I don't want to tone-police people. However, I will be assertive and set healthy boundaries about what I will and will not tolerate. 

And in this case, I will not put up with people being rude to me because I have a belief system that's seen as outdated and I don't think two people of the same gender should be sleeping with each other or be married to each other. 

Christians are called to live in the world, but not be of the world. I accepted that the moment I made my faith my own and got confirmed. I knew that there would be things in the culture that I would have to oppose. I knew I would have to stick up for the unborn and say no to supporting same-sex "marriage." And I don't do it only because I have to in order to be a good little Catholic. I do it because I trust God when He says there are certain things that are not good for us. And on the abortion issue, religious people are not the only demographic who oppose it. Many non-believers do, too, because they know that no matter what stage of development an unborn baby is at, it is still a life. It is still a human being. 

I will not put up with being told that I have a false persecution complex when a person is actually being rude to me because of my convictions. 

I will not put with my emotions being dismissed as "feigned," because more than likely, the person who did so has legitimately pissed me off. 

I told my sister about this scene and even she agreed, based on my account, that Lord Grantham was well within his rights to throw Miss Bunting out of the house because she was rude and disrespectful.

Imagine that! My sister, who prefers people over institutions, agreed that Miss Bunting was disrespectful and that Lord Grantham was right to tell her to leave. 

Yes, the Ascension video caused division amongst people. Some people praised the video while others condemned it.

Now, I am aware that Mr. Alexander calls the Christian stance on homosexuality abusive, manipulative, and malicious. 

I disagree and here's why. I will back up my argument that the video and the Christian stance on homosexuality does not constitute any kind of abuse with two works of fiction that depict abusive behavior. 

The first is the aforementioned 1996 Disney film, The Hunchback of Notre Dame.  

 The abuse depicted in Hunchback is perpetrated by Judge Claude Frollo, the film's villain. Frollo is a religious fanatic who serves as a Minister of Justice in medieval Paris, which is where the movie is set. 

 In the opening scenes of the film, Frollo's cruelty is made apparent by his capture of a group of Gypsies, pursuing an innocent Gypsy woman with an infant, causing her to die by causing her to fall and  hit her head on the steps of the titular Cathedral, and attempting to drown her baby in a nearby well.  

The Archdeacon of the Cathedral intervenes and administers fraternal correction to Frollo for his sin of voluntary manslaughter. His penance for killing an innocent Gypsy woman? To raise her orphaned child. 

Here are the relevant lyrics from the film's opening song, The Bells of Notre Dame.

[Clopin, sung]
Four frightened gypsies slid silently under
The docks near Notre Dame

[Man #3, spoken]
Four guilders for safe passage into Paris

[Clopin, sung]
But a trap had been laid for the gypsies
And they gazed up in fear and alarm
At a figure whose clutches
Were iron as much as the bells

[Man #1, spoken]
Judge Claude Frollo!

[Clopin, sung]
The bells of Notre Dame

[Chorus]

Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)

[Clopin]
Judge Claude Frollo longed
To purge the world
Of vice and sin

[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)

[Clopin]
And he saw corruption
Ev'rywhere
Except within

[Frollo, spoken]
Bring these gypsy vermin to the palace of justice

[Guard]

You there, what are you hiding?

[Frollo]

Stolen goods, no doubt. Take them from her

[Clopin]
She ran 

[Chorus, sung]
Dies irae, dies illa (Day of wrath, that day)
Solvet saeclum in favilla (Shall consume the world in ashes)
Teste David cum sibylla (As prophesied by David and the sibyl)
Quantus tremor est futurus (What trembling is to be)
Quando Judex est venturus (When the Judge is come)

[Woman, spoken]
Sanctuary, please give us sanctuary!

[Frollo]
A baby? A monster! 

[Frollo, spoken]
This is an unholy deamon
I am sending it back to Hell, where it belongs

[Archdeacon, sung]
See there the innocent blood you have spilt
On the steps of Notre Dame

[Frollo, spoken]
I am guiltless. She ran, I pursued

[Archdeacon, sung]
Now you would add this child's blood to your guilt
On the steps of Notre Dame

[Frollo, spoken]
My conscience is clear!

[Archdeacon, sung]
You can lie to yourself and your minions
You can claim that you haven't a qualm
But you never can run from
Nor hide what you've done from the eyes
The very eyes of Notre Dame

[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)

[Clopin]
And for one time in his life
Of power and control

[Chorus]
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)

[Clopin]
Frollo felt a twinge of fear
For his immortal soul

[Frollo, spoken]
What must I do?

[Archdeacon]
Care for the child, and raise it as your own

[Frollo]
What? I'm to be saddled with this misshapen...?
Very well. Let him live with you, in your church

[Archdeacon]
Live here? Where?

[Frollo]
Anywhere

(Sung)

Just so he's kept locked away
Where no one else can see

(Spoken)

The bell tower, perhaps
And who knows, our Lord works in mysterious ways 

But Frollo's healthy dose of fear for putting his immortal soul in jeopardy is quickly overshadowed by his idea that someday the child may be of use to him and his cruel agenda.

(Sung)
Even this foul creature may
Yet prove one day to be
Of use to me

[Clopin, spoken]
And Frollo gave the child a cruel name
A name that means "half-formed":

Quasimodo

These lyrics convey that Frollo sees Quasi as less than human because he is deformed.  At this point, any potential redeeming qualities Frollo had are gone. 

Years later, Quasi is the bellringer of Notre Dame. Hidden away from the outside world, he carves wooden figures of the people of the city and has a wooden 3D model of the city that he's made. He longs to go the Feast of Fools, but knows he can't because Frollo won't let him and would be pretty upset if he disobeyed. His friends, the Gargoyles, convince him to go in disguise so Frollo doesn't find out. Just then, Frollo visits with a picnic basket containing their lunch. As they eat, Frollo asks if they should review Quasi's progress with learning the alphabet. Quasi says yes. Frollo takes out a book and starts naming the letters. At each letter, Quasi blurts out religious terms beginning with the specific letters: "abomination," "blasphemy," "contrition," "damnation," "eternal damnation." When they get to "F," Quasi blurts out "festival," which prompts Frollo to spit out a mouthful of wine, dab his mouth with a napkin, and say, "Excuse me?" with a  tone of displeasure. Quasi quickly blurts out, "forgiveness," to placate Frollo. "You said 'festival,'" Frollo says as he snaps the book shut. "No!" Quasi cries out. "You are thinking about going to the festival." Frollo says. "It's just that...you go every year." Quasi explains.

Here is the rest of the exchange between the two in this scene.

Frollo: I am a public official. I must go! But I don't enjoy a moment. Thieves and hustlers and the dregs of humankind, all mixed together in a shallow, drunken stupor. 

 Quasi: I didn't mean to upset you, master. 

Frollo: Quasimodo, can't you understand? When your heartless mother abandoned you as a child , anyone else would have drowned you. And this my thanks for taking you in and raising you as my son? 

Frollo's last response is a clear sign of abuse, because we, the audience, know the truth: Quasi's mother was not heartless and she did not abandon him.  As for the "anyone else would have drowned you," we know Frollo tried to do that. I'm not sure if anyone else would have. Frollo's guards and the people of the city (except Clopin, Phoebus, and Esmeralda)? Maybe, given their poor treatment of Quasi at the festival. Frollo's last sentence is clear-cut emotional abuse and manipulation. And possibly even gaslighting.  

Quasi: I'm sorry, sir.

 Frollo: Oh, my dear Quasimodo, you don't know what it's like out there. I do...I do... 

More manipulation so Quasi continues to trust and depend on him. 

(Frollo begins to sing his version of "Out There")

The world is cruel
The world is wicked
It's I alone whom you can trust in this whole city
I am your only friend
I who keep you, teach you, feed you, dress you
I who look upon you without fear
How can I protect you, boy, unless you
Always stay in here
Away in here 

(spoken) Remember what I taught you, Quasimodo

(sung)
You are deformed 

Quasi: I am deformed

Quasi: And I am ugly

Frollo: And these are crimes

For which the world

Shows little pity

Folks, that is the most creepy evil smile I have ever seen. So throughout Frollo's "Out There," we see pyschological abuse in action. However, Frollo's abuse does contain a truth in it: the outside world, with the exception of Esmeralda, was cruel to Quasi because he was deformed. However, this is so because Frollo didn't stop it when he had the chance. 

The most dangerous lie is one that has an element of truth in it. 

Stage production, 25th anniversary at the Royal Albert Hall:

Madame Giry:

So the Phantom abused Christine and terrorized an Opera House because he had a tragic childhood in which he was abused, ridiculed, and shunned by almost everyone who came into contact with him all because he had a deformed face. And because he wasn't given the tools to express his needs and wants in a healthy way. 

As a result of people denying him love, affection, sympathy, dignity, and respect, the poor thing suffered from a great deal of complex trauma and had no tools to manage it properly.

And some people who know this musical well still say that "The Phantom longed to fully dominate and restrict Christine. He didn't truly love her" and "there is no space for love in abuse." 

I've discussed this with my sister, a therapist dealing with troubled kids. She knows firsthand from working with troubled kids that a person with a ton of trauma can genuinely love someone in their hearts, but their ability of showing it and expressing a healthy view of love is often damaged due to trauma and psychological issues. 

So she and I agree that in his heart, the Phantom truly loved Christine as a person, but he couldn't show it in a healthy way and couldn't express a healthy view of love due to the extreme amount of complex trauma he was experiencing. 

The Phantom loved Christine not just for her voice and her physical beauty, but because she was innocent, compassionate, and gentle. 

So the Phantom's intentions behind the abuse weren't malicious.  The Phantom wanted to love and be loved so his intentions were good. 

Now, in real life, intentions behind abuse are often not good. So I understand why Mr. Alexander thinks why Jason's intentions are malicious. But I don't think his intentions are malicious. Like the Phantom, Jason Evert means well. 

The Catholic Church also means well when she labels homosexual inclinations as "objectively disordered," and says homosexual acts are intrinsically and gravely disordered. Otherwise, the Catechism would not explicitly require Catholics to treat people with homosexual attractions "with compassion, sensitivity, and respect," in  a subsequent paragraph. 

So the Ascension video is not abusive or manipulative because Jason is not lying, manipulating, or abusing people. 

In fact, here's the same talk he gave, but this one is from his own YouTube channel and it's the better version because it includes scientific evidence from the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

Time for more screenshots of Gavin's ridiculous replies. 

Really? If dying on a cross to save us from our crimes against Him and giving Himself to us as bread isn't love, then I don't know what is.

God wants to keep us all safe. That's why He doesn't want us having same-gender sex.

 It is perfectly OK for people of the same gender to be close to each other. But marriage and same-gender sex are just not possible. 

I'll stop calling myself a Catholic and a Christian if Gavin stops calling himself an Atheist. I don't appreciate the attitude in his reply. I don't appreciate his lack of patience towards those who don't share his point of view or clearly have no clue of what he's getting at. 

My response is to Gavin's last comment. I disagree with him. I see the situation this way: He has done nothing but speak up against the Church's message and those who praise the video's message. He's been doing it for two years. I've explained why I don't think we're manipulating and abusing LGBRQ+ people. Watch the video yourself and decide for yourself whether or not we are "demoralizing, browbeating, marginalizing, and abusing LGBTQ+ people." 

I have educated myself on mind control and undue influence thanks to several cult experts.

I am going to reply to the second and third parts of Mr. Alexander's reply. I don't agree with Mr. Alexander and here's why: listening to the Catholic Church when it comes to homosexuality is an individual choice. There's always the option to say "no thank you" and get on with your life. 

In fact, I would like my fellow Catholics and Christians to respect other people's boundaries when they say they're not interested in hearing about the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality and other LGTBQ+ issues. In the other version of Jason's talk that I embedded in this post, Jason even advises against shoving anything about the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality and other LGTBQ+ issues down people's throats. He advises treating them like a person, not a problem to be fixed. 

And Jesus Himself preached to those who were willing to listen. He never forced people to listen to his teachings. So my brothers and sisters in Christ, let's follow the example of our good Lord and preach only to those who are willing to listen, to those who are interested. 

  "Your kind has for far too long, invaded the lives of LGTBQ+ people." Hmm, what an odd thing to post. 

I don't think this is a situation in which LGBTQ+ Catholics say they're happy and the bad now in the relationship outweighs the good. Ask LGBTQ+ Catholics if they're happy. Ask if they know/feel that they're in an abusive relationship. If they say "no," don't try to wake them up as if they're in destructive, mind-controlling, authoritarian cults like the Moonies and Scientology. Leave them alone. Like Dr. Hassan, I think there is a huge difference between legitimate religions like Catholicism, Christianity, and Judaism and the aforementioned destructive, authoritarian, mind-controlling cults. 

While I agree crying foul is not a good idea, we can be assertive and set healthy boundaries. It's OK to say, "I don't like it when I'm told that my moral compass is broken," and things like that.  

I don't appreciate that Gavin quoted a Bible verse when a Christian told him that he has hurt people's feelings. Did the Christian express that in a respectful way? No. But he still has a right to express how what Gavin is doing makes him feel. 

I disagree with Gavin. I see the situation this way:  I know of Catholics with homosexual desires who do identify as gay and those who don't. I understand the arguments for not identifying as gay and for identifying as gay. On the one hand, it would be really weird to me if I were speaking at a Catholic event about homosexuality and the person presenting me said, "This is Susana Christine and she is straight/heterosexual."  There's a lot more to me than my sexual orientation. Plus, it implies that gays are broken or crooked. On the other hand, I understand it's mentally unhealthy for some same-sex attracted Catholics to not identify as gay.   I acknowledge that homosexual tendencies are directed toward behavior that is unsafe, unhealthy, or not in the best interests of people. Personally, I lean towards gay Catholics like Chris Damien and the position that not identifying as gay is detrimental.  

I found a post on Tumblr that states both positions can be in line with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. The post in question comes from a blog about Catholic teachings about human sexuality, specifically Pope Saint John Paul II's teachings on human sexuality. 

I would appreciate it if a certified mental health professional could weigh in on Gavin's last reply in the screenshot above.  

 I don't think it's bigotry. It is wanting the best for these people. That's what love is. 

I don't appreciate the use of the aforementioned traits to identify and describe a whole group of people. And no, Matthew did not define himself as a Catholic. He identified himself as a Christian. 

The irony... 

In Part 1 of this post series, I stated that I experience scrupulosity. So it makes me mad that Mr. Alexander keeps telling Christians that their moral compass is broken. 

Experiencing scrupulosity means that I don't have a lax conscience. I don't have a tender conscience. I don't have a well-formed conscience. I have a sharp and irrational conscience that constantly doubts itself.

When I'm frequently questioning my own judgment due to the tendencies of a neurological disorder, an Atheist telling me that my moral compass is broken because I don't think people of the same gender should be marrying each other and sleeping with each other is the last thing I need to hear.