Matt Slick vs Haydi (Audio Only); shared on Godless Girl's channel

Responding to:
 

 What accounts for Theist and (more specifically) both Jewish and Christian Theists ...

who happen to be: * fully appropriately credentialed historians of religion whose expertise includes: * Hebrew and Christian religious histories, and yet whom: * agree with secular historians that: * exactly zero of the miracle claims count as verified historical events ? I can see how a fundie would accuse the secular historians of anti-magic bias. But why do the God-believing historians agree with the secular historians? -------- Also, ... What accounts for all the laymen Christian who have spent considerable efforts to look into such matters and now conclude-and-confess that they ultimately: had to "take it on faith" (for emotional, and/or intuitive, and/or practical reasons),
in the definite absence of objectively sufficient evidence? ------- Also, what accounts for all the Christian-theists who AGREE with Matt's claims about: what the facts are and yet: do NOT submit to Matt's religious narrative and premise-of-authority? Many Christians interpret Bibles so differently that the are convinced "objectively" that a different *sect is exclusively "the truth". [*along with a different set of doctrines; per radically different "objective" understandings of the texts, and as guided by a radically different "Holy Spirit"). How does Matt's theory-of-rejection apply to them? === While we ponder this, please enjoy this commercial break:

=== Further, what of those sects who are even more strict; demanding even more subjugation and sacrifice? Surely THEY aren't trying to make excuses so they can live sinfully-indulgent/selfish God-denying lives. --- In fact, I've known plenty of atheists who live a life more simple, clean, self-disciplined, self-sacrificing, and non-indulgent life than many Christians. It's common knowledge that any atheist can simply join a very progressive and casual version of Christianity. And surely they would, ... if they thought the gist of it were true. Granted, that's not the same as really "believing" it. But this is part of my point. No one can just "choose to believe". Nor are atheists just pretending to lack those beliefs. Those whom claim to find the whole thing non-credible ... really don't find it credible. But if those atheists either: became Christians tomorrow, or merely joined a church and 'tried to believe', ... there literally isn't anything they'd need to stop doing. For them, accepting a very basic idea of "Jesus" wouldn't be a change (at all) in the way they live their lives; -not if the version they embraced was casual and individual. Although, the same can't be said of Matt Slick's hyper-fundamentalist Jesus. In that case, I admit. Many sacrifices must be made. And Matt is correct. Many atheists (along with many Christians, and billions of differently-religious Theists) are "stubbornly unwilling" to make those sacrifices. Such as: The sacrifices of money (and things of monetary value) they'd be asked to "donate" to other fallible humans. Worse yet, they'd be surrendering: Every meaningful facet of their life's journey; even including their very identity. But not "to a God". Rather, just to other fallible humans. They'd have to let other fallible humans wield *entitled* authorship over their story and authority over their lives. But Slick has no warrant for that entitlement; other than a religiously-themed and revised iteration of the Narcissist Playbook. --

Granted, some people are drawn to that. They even get a lot of "joy" from it. At worst, it's a psychiatric disorder. At best, it's a kink. Either way, it does real damage to those cultists (and their children's) psychology and to their physical brain.

But it's dressed up as a virtue ... by the people who want to control and exploit child/slave/sheep minded who are tired of being responsible for their own lives. "It's morally wrong for you to own your own life. Surrender it unto me! Err... I mean "to God" ... by submitting to me ... who speaks for God."

Again, some people are into that. So for them, it's a WIN!

Now, I ain't here to kink-shame. But for Matt to demand that it's a virtue AND the one-true-virtue which separates the righteous from "wicked" people who don't even deserve to exist (except maybe to be tortured), ... It's really just a grift; in the vein of "Kissing Hank's Ass".

In fact, it's so blatantly, obviously THAT, ... that if you share the "Kissing Hank's Ass" video with literally any Christian in the world (who speaks English), ... they will immediately recognize this is about their religion. ----- Matt Slicks theories about everyone who a.) "hears the message" and yet b.) doesn't agree with the fundamental/core claims Matt makes about that message ... doesn't hold-true the factual range of human experience. Nor does it jive with current scientific understandings of behavior psychology, neuropsychology, nor sociology. People's actual reasons for how they respond to Matt's (or anyone else's) religious fundamentalism aren't even remotely similar to what Matt imagines. Even when it works, it's not for the reasons Matt imagines. [links: How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks The Brain

Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism

Study finds link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism ]

[more links will be added in future edits] He has simply cloaked his clinical Narcissism with religious justifications. "God" is the name of his own ego's mask. It's why his personality is so God-Awful. It's also why NONE of the billions of better-version-Christians are confronting Matt Slick for: hurting their "God's" reputation and for driving (aka: stumbling) people away in the name of "saving" them. They don't want to tangle with that abusive asshole either. It ain't their problem. And there's no way to reason with Matt Anyways. Most Christians, upon seeing Matt Slick in action, would immediately denounce him as "not a true Christian" (nor a true Scotsman) and then "wash their hands of him". [Fun idea for a Youtube stream: "Christians React to Matt Slick"] ---------
Note:
This blog only covers the gist of the exchange.
As time permits, if anyone requests it,
I'd be willing to do a detailed blow-by-blow analysis of the Slick vs Haydi clip. --- Many thanks, to Godless Girl; for sharing this selected clip on her channel.