A Conversation with a Christian-Fundamentalist; About Morality and "Free Will".

My FB-friend, David Brown, recently posted a great post about Free Will (more specifically, libertarian free will; the kind that religious fundamentalists pretend we have).

My thoughts on the matter:
 
 We will 100% always choose our strongest-felt motivator.

If someone is faced with the choice of vanilla or chocolate icecream, ...

 they will imagine each taste, while they recall what those were like for them in the past.


If they expect chocolate to be the preferred experience, they'll choose chocolate.

But if they are in the middle of a "Free Will" debate with me, while standing in line,

... and I tell them they WILL choose whichever flavor they expect a more enjoyable experience from,
...

they now have a new variable to weigh.

Now they have to FIRST decide which flavor they'll enjoy more.

And then they have to weigh the pull of that motivator ... against any desire they might have to "prove they have free will".

But they'll still fail to prove they have free will, because:

the only way they can choose the less desired flavor ... is if the desire to "prove free will" is stronger.

So either way, they will have to disprove "free will", because they must still surrender to whichever feeling is stronger for them (in the moment).

--

The same is true when people self-sacrifice.

We never get to choose what our strongest motivators will be.

Those are chosen for us, by complex physics.

We obey whatever physics chooses for us.

So we can say we are always "free" to do whatever we want most.

But since we MUST always do whatever we want most (within the limits of options that we are aware of), ...

it's like telling a caged person they are "free" to stay in their cage when it's locked.

Or telling a caged person they are free to leave, as we open the door. 

We are leaves in the wind.

Once we stop struggling against it, we gain more power to enjoy the ride.

----
[Christian]:

By this standard though there is no culpability,
and furthermore no such thing as good and evil; right and wrong.


And by that standard then I am 1000% correct in my belief in God bc well , physics.

I find this idea of no free will to be extremely flawed.
Bc all you’re doing is replacing “Free will” with the word “desire”.

And even so I don’t think that the idea itself works bc that would mean our very thoughts are not our own.

Physics decided I could be funny?

To say that physics could decide character traits is to say that it has consciousness.

We have choices.

We weigh our options and decide what we want and what will be best for us.
 (Whether it is best is irrelevant) Just because our choices may have outside influences doesn’t mean that they are not our choices.

That’s how I see it anyway.

-----

So ok ...

certain chemicals in the brain cause various mental states. including a general mood and specific emotions.


We can't will ourselves into producing those chemicals.

Nor can we will ourselves into a different mood or emotion, to override the corresponding chemicals and electrical signals.

Those chemical and electrical signals ... are generated spontaneously, as a result of various events; external and internal events.

The internal events would include anything from pain signals, pleasure signals, comforts, discomforts, diet, exercise, sleep deficiencies, etc.


They would also include:

 various automatically-happening electrical signals that result from random thoughts that pop into our heads;

- much of which would be the result of stimuli being processed subconsciously and consciously.

 One thought = electrical signals running across the microscopically-specific parts of the brain that house that thought.

Electricity hits that pathway and then BOOM! ... the thought recorded in that part of the brain ... plays;
like a needle on a record album.


When that happens,
the electricity at that location ...
has not been fully spent.
And it's still moving.

It's like water in a river.

It pushes forward ... for somewhere to go.

But that energy is not sentient.

It is just a force of moving energy that still needs to be spent.


Meanwhile, ...


The part of the brain has
 a singular thought imprinted.

It has just played that recorded thought.

That previously recorded thought
has electrically-conductive pathways ... connecting it to other previously recorded thoughts.

All of that is connected to various specific emotional triggers.

 Which emotions will be triggered at the moment ...

will depend on which emotions were triggered when those thoughts were originally recorded.
and
 which emotions were being experienced every-next-time that pre-recorded events is played again. 


As that electricity plays various emotional "notes" like a song,
and
plays rational ideas like words in that song,
and
plays images connected to those notes and chords ...

the pathways it flows across are determined by:
the paths of greatest conductivity/ least resistance.


Every time neuroelectric energy flows across a path, it attracts bonding chemicals to those pathways.

That makes those connections stronger.

And every time two local neuron fire at the same time, they grow towards each other.

If they are close enough, they establish a new pathway.


“Neurons that fire together, wire together.”

- Donald Hebb.

This is why the practice of gratitude can be so powerful. Neuropsychologist Donald Hebb first used this phrase in 1949 to describe how pathways in the brain are formed and reinforced through repetition.
----

[Christian]:

But even if a thought pops in your head it is your choice to act on it.

 If you’re driving and think “I could drive my car off this bridge” …
you actively choose not to.

Or if the thought pops up that you wanna walk out of your job, or sleep with someone, or eat cake… you can choose to do those things or not do them.

---


Tracing all of that back to our infancy, ...

It all started with very very basic stimuli being processed as very basic connections.

Those connections gradually culminate in coherent sensations and ideas.

Upon these,
 everything more specific is built.
--
--

If we are driving in a car
and we experience a moment where we are tempted to drive off a cliff, ...

--
[Christian]:

If everything were a learned thing then everything would have always stayed the same.

---

[I'm not sure what she means. 

I'll ask her in a minute.

But I was already in the middle of typing out the rest of my previous thought.]

The idea of "I could drive off of this cliff, right now",

along with:

any related feelings we might have

 are generated subconsciously.

Thus,
we find the idea of it just popped into our conscious thoughts.

Magical creatures didn't posit those thoughts into our conscious mind.

Those thoughts moved there, from our subconscious.

Our subconscious was helpless too.

Physics-events generated that state.

Such a mind-state is the result of various associate ideas and feelings ... happening automatically.

They happen entirely because of physics.

That includes external stimuli, our current neuro-map, and our present blood chemistry ...

 connecting to each other into a larger idea.


In that moment,
a "choice" is made.

It feels like we are freely "choosing".

 But we are not freely choosing.

 It's not even a coherent idea, to say we are freely choosing.
Because:

Only two logical possibilities exist.
--

Pick a moment.

Any moment, in the entire process of thinking and doing.

Zoom in, as close as you want.

Freeze time.

Look at the frame of time before it.

Look at the frame of time we call "the moment we made a choice".

Look at the next frame, where we carry out that choice.

The moment we identify as "the moment we made a choice",
either:

 a.) happened without any prior causes

 or

b.) happened as a result of prior causes.

 Possibility "a" is called "magic".

It means:
something from nothing.

And it still wouldn't count as "free will" because randomness is the opposite of choice.

Possibility "b" isn't "free will" either.
Because:
the decision is caused by a series of prior events in the mind.


There is no option C.


---
---

re:

"If everything were a learned thing then everything would have always stayed the same."

--

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

However,
 I'll respond to what I think you mean.

--

Babies don't choose to see, hear, or feel.

But they do experience those things.

And yet, at first, it's all very fuzzy.

Sight, sound, and other sensations.

It's all a faded blur of sensory input; experienced by a mind so rudimentary that:

 there is no sense of self,
nor sense of others,
nor any sense of agency.

There are none of the cognitions required for a narrative or 'story' to explain any of it with.


As we age, we develop a basic capacity for short-term memory.


With that ability, the brain starts to create connections between:
 different sensory experiences
 vs
how they feel about those experiences.

Meanwhile, those experiences are getting sharper; more defined.
---
[Christian]:

What I mean is:
 if everything is a learned thing and we have no control over what is thought or experienced...
 then
how people were raised a thousand years ago would still be the same today.

Everything would stay the same bc no one is unique and no one would have made choices contrary to what they learned.

So we’d all still be in the dark cuz no advancements would have ever been made;
 if that makes sense.

---

We each are a sentient storm,

moving gradually across the sky.

We continually gather new air and water.

 We generate our own electricity within.

Sometimes we thunder!

Sometimes we strike!

Sometimes, we are calm.

We keep going.

As we move across that sky, we encounter others.

There are countless many events 
 which give shape and voice to:

 the mind.

- These clouds of wonder and mystery
 change constantly and uniquely.




 The same is true for every formation of clouds in this grand sky of ours.

Our environment constantly shapes and reshapes us.

No two people-clouds are ever born at exactly the same place, under exactly the same circumstance.

As we move, grow, and interact
with other clouds,
we become more complex and more unique.


--
[Christian]:

It again that would mean there is no morality; no right and wrong.

Therefore, everyone is fine in their actions: including murders, pedophiles, any kind of abuser… I mean abusers get a dopamine high from causing pain.
So if they’re only doing what their receptors are telling them to do then are you saying that pedophiles and abusers are in actuality not wrong to do as they do… is that correct ?

If no one is responsible for their actions then no one should be held accountable?

---

Responsibility.

Response + ability.

Our ability to respond.

Additionally: the motivations which generate those responses and whatever that says about our character.

 ---

Now, I do not include:
what shoes I might prefer to wear while considering 'moral' concerns.

Why not?

Because (so far as I know) this is not normally a thing anyone has a reason to care about.

Why not?

Because it won't affect the development of my social values, nor how I express those, nor how I carry those into action.

We're really talking about which attitudes and actions I value, how I determine values for those, and how those translate into actions.... (specifically) when those things will affect other people.

Why?

Because we are people.

And we care about how other people behave.

Why?

Because other people's behaviors affect us and our loved ones ... in ways that are somewhere on the spectrum of things we consider good or bad.

What does it mean to say something is good or bad?

It's another way of saying that we like a thing, love a thing, dislike a thing, or hate a thing. 

We assign a positive value to things that we regard as positive experiences.

We assign negative values to things we regard as negative experiences.

We also make more complex statements, like saying "The experience of getting a shot is bad"
and yet "getting shots are ultimately good".

So then we are weighing the downsides against the upsides, to make a sum-total calculation about if it's mostly good or bad.

If I say "is it ever ok to stab a child with a sharp object?", you'll probably just say "no".

There is nothing in bibles saying it's bad.
We just don't want to see that happen, because we care about children.

But if I say "I meant giving them a necessary inoculation", then you'd probably say that is an "exception to the rule". 

Nothing in any Bible addressed this.

They didn't even know the microscopic world exists.

So you'd be making a "moral" judgment, without the help of Bibles, and without any need to ask for divine direction on the matter, ... 

based on the perceived greater interests of that child and of your community.

This is what morals are.

It's just however we ~work it out~,
to decide if:

* something is good, bad, or neither.

* how much it's good, or how much it's bad.

*  And if there are any conditional exceptions to those statements.

---

This can, of course, be problematic.

It means we don't have an objective or global basis for determining all matters of good or bad.

So then, there is always the chance someone else will disagree with our assessments.

But for the most part,
that isn't a problem in our everyday lives.

When we go to a Dr for healthcare,
we don't need to read any manuals to find out what they think counts a:
"hurting" vs "helping" ,
or
"sickness" vs "wellness".

 Humans have a LOT in common.

And that is a very good thing, when it comes to healthcare.
Because:

 We can travel to any place in the world ... and know that we share a basic understanding of what counts as "good" in that context.

It's the same foundational idea of good and bad that almost-all humans share.

We do NOT like feeling bad.

We DO like feeling good.

We do NOT like suffering limitations to our functionality.

We DO like help to overcome limitations.

So we have this very useful and very reliable shared foundation for identifying what is generally considered good or bad.

Even when we enter the weird and wonky domain of religiosity, ...

 the basic idea of these remains the same.

-Although, of course, the differences can be significant.


When "Saint" Augustine argued that heretics should be tortured into repentance BEFORE being killed and sent to God ...

he wasn't saying "because it's good to inflict suffering and death".

He was saying "because helping people avoid the fires of HELL = the greater good, because:
 it = the least amount of suffering and loss.

 ---

Some pedos actually have a story in their head which casts their actions into a justified light.

 It's not justified.

But some will think something like "I, a 50yo man, really love this 12yo "young woman".
And this is a healthy relationship".

That's how Muhammed saw it, when he married a 6yo and consummated the "marriage" when she turned 9.

It's similar to how Joseph (a grown man) would have reasoned about Mary (12-14 years old) ... when they got engaged;

- according to the customs of the time.
---

What we, today, consider to be "the age of sexual consent" ... is very different from how the Hebrews on the 1st century CE (and prior) thought about it.

 What seems to us like basic moral sense for everyone who isn't a monster ...

 is not the same way Hebrews thought about it.

 It's not even the same as how the early Christians thought about it.

The same goes for what counts as "murder" and other forms of abuse.

The basic idea of "murder" was the same. But where they drew the line is what matters. And it was not where we draw it.

Murder = killing someone who we don't need to kill. 

Leaders and armies kill people they think "need to be killed" ... for the greater good. 
 In their eyes, it's not "murder" if it serves the greater good and happens under ORDER from someone "in authority". 

"Authority"
is a curious quirk of human psychology. 

 It is never an objective reality.

It's a game that people jointly decide to play.

What's the FIRST DAMN THING Moses did (in those fictional stories) AFTER he arrived with "Commandments" in hand?

One of those commandments was "Do not kill people". 

But that didn't stop him from ordering the brutal slaughter of MANY of his own people.

Why not?
Because "do not kill" meant "do not kill anyone who doesn't have it coming". 

And who DECIDES if someone "has it coming"?

Men.

Male leaders;
in religions and other forms of government. 

Fallible, patriarchal, authoritarian-cult, assholes. 

THEY decide "who has it coming".
And MOSES (in those stories) makes this abundantly clear.

The author of that story
wrote it out, clear as day,
  in the boldest shades of BLOOD that he could imagine.  

That means that RELIGION has NOT solved the problem of subjective morality.

IF we are screwed to rely on SUBJECTIVE morality, then:
 Oh well.
We're screwed.

Wishing we had an objective moral foundation or an objective moral framework ... doesn't make it so.

There are LOTS of things we are
SCREWED if we don't have ..
that we don't. have. 

 Meanwhile, our moral values are also not the same for all modern-day societies.

Not even all Christians can agree on where to draw those lines.

So we do the best we can,
to argue our case,
push for laws that reflect our dispositions,
and try to live in accordance with how we feel things should be.

WE ARE a species of great ape.

We NEVER had an objective moral lawgiver. 

We're just doing the best we can. 

And if that means we can AFFORD less HATE
against people who HURT others (even people who hurt children), 
then so be it.

We can still JUSTIFY setting and enforcing healthy boundaries.

How can we justify that?

We can rationally justify caring about the health and function of individuals and of entire social systems. 

We don't need a larger-than-life PARENT giving us permission to give a shit about others. 

--
--

As a result of how it really works (not how we might wish it worked), ...
 the common "moral" lines (drawn in the sands of time) will keep gradually changing.


As these change,
 religious-minded persons will think of those changes as "the obviously good way".

And they will then read those changes back into their texts; to say "That's what my God really meant, all along".



And I'm fine with that.
 I really am.

I understand that sense of need ...
for a child to feel like they have Father's permission to grow.

This is how the Quakers gave themselves permission to grow; enough to lead the Abolition movement.

They grew, morally, as they learned to think for themselves.

But it felt wrong to think for themselves; especially about moral issues.

But that's ok.
It's all worked out fine.
Because they were able to convince themselves that "anti-slavery" is what OT and NT writers meant all along.

Somehow, Christians, for thousands of years, and with the best of intentions, ... were reading their bibles wrong.

oops
--
--

People grow. And that's a good thing. But we don't grow in synch.
 So it can be messy sometimes.


---
Moving forward from there,

 ... If I encounter a sociopath, or a psychopath, ... it would be pointless for me to appeal to their sense of compassion, or empathy, or their sense of personal accountability.

They don't experience those mind-states.

Thus, they neither understand nor value those things.

Thus, I must find a different concern to appeal to.

--
--

I have a "will" to protect x-people from y-actions.

--
Other people will have a "will" to commit y-actions against x-people.

--
How we work that out:


I can try to reason them into a desire to refrain from committing y-actions against x-people.

That rarely works.
But it 'can'.
So I might try.



In that attempt, I must find something they DO understand and DO care about.

That's a short list.
 The only thing on it is: their self.

But I can work with that.

There are many possible and significant consequences to committing those actions.

 There are many benefits to refraining.

--

If that appeal doesn't work 
(or, even if I'm just not sure it has worked)...

I can turn to the raw violent power of other humans who share my views and values on the matter.

ie: the police.

These are basically roaming violent gangs ... who are reasonably organized,

and whom have the formal support of (whichever) society ..

to commit any presumed necessary violence; on our collective behalf;

-per the "laws" of the land;

-which are things people (without any help from any "GOD") argue and vote on. 
---

[Christian]:

Without free will there is no such thing as morality.

We cannot grow morally if our actions are dictated by chemical processes.

According to the argument,
 if the choices I make are a mixture of xyz and not conscious free will then morality cannot exist.

 And yet it does.
Not just “this hurts so it must be bad” and “this feels good so it must be good”.

And not social constructs either.

No one has to tell a child to hide when they steal.

The first time a child steals they conceal their actions.

No one taught them that.
They knew it was wrong, whether they could express that verbally or not.
---

A theft is never the 1st crime committed.

 Theft, as a crime, always comes after an even greater crime:
 The crime of "mine".

Capitalism.

The idea that there even IS such a thing as theft.

That's where the trouble starts.

Grant, we DO need to have laws against theft.
But the only reason we need such laws ... is because the foundational structure of our society is so fucked up;

-as Stephen explained
... in that video you aren't going to watch.

Either way, ...

Children are told that it's wrong to take something that "belongs" to someone else

 That is how they learn it.

 They are told it.

They HEAR adults talking about it.

Additionally,
there are far more things said without words than those said with words.

They SEE how adults act when it comes to possessions and boundaries. 

It's not "written in their hearts". 


--
--


A final thought about theft, before I go back to the broader issues of morality and will.


Laws against theft make sense.

 As such ...

any super-being who intends to make sense ... would say something like "let's try to get people to not steal from each other".

- IF he tried to help some group of humans govern themselves.

But like with a lot of actually-reasonable things said in Hebrew texts (differentiating those from the insane things said in Hebrew texts), ...

these were not eternal laws.

(for example) These were not part of the "only one rule"-law in the Garden of Eden story.

That tree belonged to Adam and Eve (in that story).

They just weren't allowed to eat the fruit from it.

So it would be like how the Hebrew leaders owned the bodies of their followers ... but the Hebrews had rules/laws about what they weren't allowed to do with those bodies.

-Owning something didn't mean "can do whatever you want with it".

 And if we flash forward to the idea of "Heaven", ...

There wouldn't be any laws about theft there either.

So the premise of having laws from a deity about theft (for example)...

were really given under the idea that:

their favorite deity (not their only deity) was helping a very specific group of favored humans improve their efforts to: maintain order in their human society.

Humans were governing themselves; under the pretense of divine guidance and divine authority.

Claiming divine right, acting in the name of their favored deity, ...

they were violent, sexist, racist, enslaving, raping, genocide-ing, thieving, etc..

They were an authoritarian society; ruled by predatory humans ... under the pretense of divine authority.

 Their rules about "don't do X, Y, or Z" to other people ... were only about what they weren't allowed to do to each other.

Periodically, they were reminded that it's perfectly fine to do any-and-all of that stuff to foreigners who favor different gods.

According to their tribal lore (as found in the Hebrew religious texts) they were commanded (in the name of the favored deity) TO go do all that awful stuff to foreigners who worship different gods.

But many of their laws were only temporary laws.

It wouldn't make sense to have a temporary law that was an expression of their favored deity's "eternal nature"; especially not his eternal "moral" nature.

 If those laws were an expression of their deity's eternal nature, then:

 it still angers him today when his people (whoever we say his people are):

* wear mixed fabrics,

* eat shellfish,

* work (or even just pick up some sticks) on his day off,

* allow suspected witches to live,

* allow suspected gays to live,

* all suspected adulterers to live,

* allow brides to live if they can't prove their Hyman was intact when they got married,

* allow unruly children to live after beating them with a literal rod didn't correct the problem,
etc..
 

So it's really not correct to identify commands given (in those stories) as if those were eternal facts about what's good or bad to do.


Everything commanded by their favorite deity(ies) was said on the foundation of:
 "You specific people"
and
"until I say otherwise".

They were not expressions of absolute moral facts.


To find an absolute moral fact in a Bible, you'd have to find something given as a moral command or a moral premise ...
that is specified to be eternal.


There are, at least arguably, a few which are implied;
- like eternally co-dependent childhood under their favored deity as an eternal "Father".

But actual commands of "do this" and "don't do that" are always only binding on whoever those are given to; and only until they are told otherwise.


Otherwise,
 you are giving your "God" the equivalent of a middle-finger-solute,

 every time you eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics

... while hiding behind the legal shield of "Jesus freed us ...
to defy 613 of God's eternal objective moral facts.
 Our God may still be getting pissed about it. But he can't do anything about it."


You simply can't have it both ways.


If those laws were:

1. objective moral facts

2. revealed to (some) humans

 3. by an objective moral lawgiver,

4. as an expression of his eternally unchanging moral nature, ...

then:

you are living in gross defiance against Him.

From there, it's up to you if you want to say "but Jesus said we can".

If Jesus released you to behave in those ways, then Jesus is rebelling against your god. 

Whereas,
 if Jesus did NOT release you from those eternal, objective moral truths,
then:

(assuming/pretending those are real persons)
 you are defying BOTH the Father and the Son.

- Unless:

 morally-themed commands given by that "God" (in bibles) were never intended to be seen as objective moral facts,
given as expressions of a deity's eternal moral nature.

If the morally-themed pronouncements in Hebrew texts were only people-specific and situational (aka "temporary"),
then you're in the clear.

But that would automatically also mean:

those were not objective moral facts, given by a deity as expressions of his eternally unchanging moral nature.


Flaw Forward to the (backdated) 1st Century CE:

A random and obscure Jewish sect
(a then-modern offshoot; diverging from the Essene faction)
 suffers the loss (the death) of their ENTRY into the common CONTEST ... to see which Jewish faction could produce the promised Military leader/messiah

who would lead the Jews to military conquest over their oppressors;

- to establish the promised Jewish Kingdom on Earth.

Their contestant failed.

He died without being/doing what that messiah was supposed to be/do.

They were utterly embarrassed by that unexpected turn of events.

 But then one of them had a post-bereavement hallucination (a very common human psychological event); thinking they surely just saw their dead Jew-cult leader.

 The idea spread.

The legend grew.

The Hebrew texts got re-imagined: to say things they never said and to mean things they never meant.

Decades went by.

All that time, nobody wrote down any of the rumors about Jesus.

 They didn't even write down any of the evolving theological narratives people had been developing around it;
-until decades later.

Who wrote the first written version?

Nobody knows.

How much of the original Jesus's actual words or life-events remained unchanged?

 How much of it survived that decades-long telephone game?

Nobody knows.

There's no way to know.

Humans didn't have the foresight to realize how helpful some original records would be.

They didn't even think there would BE a far-future version of their still-evolving religion, because:

The END of everyone except proper Jews (and maybe some gentile converts) was supposed to happen in that Jesus's original followers' lifetime.

So there was no need to write anything down for future generations.


So which temporary/situational laws from the OT were decommissioned in the new religion?

Nobody knows.

Which new laws were implemented?

Nobody knows that either.

Why not?

Because nobody saw a reason to write anything down ... until decades later.

Thus, we have no way to know how much was changed by the time someone finally wrote something down.

- Although, it wouldn't be so cut-and-dry, even if we did know.
Because:

The morality-themed demands placed upon members ... would vary
* between churches,
* between authors,
and
*even from generation to generation.

This was, after all, a new religious theme ... which was rapidly spawning more-and-more rival churches;

- all competing to be the dominant and "authoritative" voice of Christianity.
--

Traditionally, it has been assumed that Saul/Paul's writings
are the oldest/first of the Christian writings.

To avoid complicating the issues,
we can just make that same assumption.

Although, recent scholarship has challenged that assumption; arguing that Saul/Paul's letters could have been written AFTER the gospels; in the early 2nd century.

We will probably never know for sure.
But I mention this because it's possible.

 If Paul's letters were first, then those happened a couple of decades after their Super-guy is said to have died.


He only wrote 7
of the books credited to him.

And those 7 did suffer some corruption.

They were written mostly as metaphors.

Paul claimed he was NOT basing his writing on what he heard from Christians.

Instead, he claims he received it all from personal revelation ... from dead/ghost Jesus.

The book we call "the book of Mark" was the first of the later-dubbed "gospels".

 It was written decades later.

It was not written by an eyewitness either.

Instead, it was written anonymously, by someone formally trained in Greek literature.

To write those stories,
they took poorly understood (or intentionally misrepresented) Hebrew-religious texts ...
and combined those with:
 commonly-known tropes
from Greek literature. 

Most of what "gospel" writers said about Jesus ... was NOT said or done by Jesus. 

 It was said and done by fictional characters in Greek literature ...
and then transposed and adapted into the new-and-evolving Christian stories.  

They were writing whatever they heard from the new religion's gossip vine ...
combined with:
however much artistic and political license they felt like taking.

The next "gospel" was written decades after the first.

By now, all the original followers would have been dead.

It copied a lot of the anonymous-Mark verbatim.

But that writer tried to correct problems made in Mark, and tried to improve upon the story and its leading character.

 Another couple of decades passed.

 Another later-dubbed "gospel" story was written.

This one ALSO copied a lot of anonymous-Mark verbatim.

 This one ALSO tried to fix and improve prior versions.

More decades passed.

Yet another non-eyewitness "gospel" is written.

But it goes radically further than the prior versions went ... to make Jesus ... SUPER.

In doing so, the theological narrative morphs even more.


Christianity, is what I call a "dumpster diver's religion".

 It started when someone hallucinated a jew-cult leader being seen after he died.

 So they dove back into the trash bin where their failed Jew-cult had been thrown away ... pulled it back out, re-purposed it, and gave it a spit polish.


People have been trying to "fix" it ever since.

It's always broken.

So people keep trying to fix it.

Thus, we have countless many versions and countless many apologists ... all trying to correct each other's mistakes.

They're all trying to make it work;
as logical,
ethical,
and internally harmonious.

They also try to make it consistent with what real life teaches us.

They all keep failing to make it work.

They can't even get one of those features to really work.
But they all keep claiming victory.
Because  
nobody buys stuff that says "this shit doesn't really work" on the front of the packaging". 
--

and 
Meanwhile, ... what have been the fruits of Protestant, evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity?

The same as the Catholic tree that apple fell from.

Atrocities.

So much needless dysfunction, suffering, and death.

And all for what?

For "His" glory?

Who should we blame?

Who should we blame for the FACT that the works of Hebrew-religious and Christian-religious authors ... were poorly preserved?

 Who should we blame for the FACT that so many billions of overly-humbled, Bible-God sycophants can't agree about what any of it means?


Who should we blame for the FACT that billions more differently-religious humans, and billions of other non-religious humans ...
don't find Christianity's internally-divided house with such insane preachments ... to be credible?


If there is a General, or a King ...

 should we blame the troops for utter chaos?

 Should we blame the peasants?

Should we blame neighboring peoples?

Who should we blame for a King's inability to be understood?


If people INVENTED HIM, then we should blame those people.


But if there really is a cosmic KING attempting to be seen, hear, and understood, ... then we MUST blame him instead.

Did some Cosmic Creator ... "design" human psychology?

Human sociology?

Human neurophysiology?

Humans wildly varying in raw intelligence?

 Humans wildly varying, in other forms of intelligence?

Human dependence on well-balanced blood chemistry for cognition?

 Human blood chemistry's dependence on a LONG LONG list of dietary optimizations that we STILL haven't completely discovered yet?

Human cognition's dependence on adequate quality and quantity of sleep? 

Human inability to ensure any of that?

 Human-cognition being skewed dramatically because of temperatures, colors, textures, movements, etc?



Think about it.

If the FIRS TIME you tell someone the "message", 
they might  not trust what you say .. if they just got done HOLDING A COLD BEVERAGE! 

And if they don't trust you THE FIRST TIME,...

 their brain will neurologically wire a connection between that "message" and "people who are cold and suspicious". 

- Which means:
they will associate the "message" with being cold and suspicious.  

Of course, your message actually IS cold and suspicious.
But they won't even bother working out the real reasons for that.

They'll just ~file it away~ in their brain's filing system, under "things I don't trust".
 
And thus:
 they won't even bother to hear or think more about it later.  

Human cognition is also radically dependent on prior life experiences, including past traumas.

 In fact, it's radically impacted by a litany of non-traumatic factors;

- like their own unique ways that LANGUAGE has been mapped in their mind.
--

So if one of my KIDS hears a JW telling them that a "Jesus" died for them and that they MUST believe that OR ELSE be damned to eternal destruction as a JDUGEMENT for being a "rebellious" sinner ...

whose FAULT is it that my kids aren't impressed?

Satan's?

The JW's "Jehovah's" fault?

Your Jesus's fault? 

It sure won't be my kids' fualt that my kids aren't impressed with anything the JWs are saying. 

But the JWs insist that IS my kid's fault.
And they justify that ugly accusation ...
the same way you do. 

What if a Catholic says the same thing, except makes an implicit Hell-threat as part of it, instead of just being thrown away like trash forever?

Should my kids be impressed by that, and say "OMG! That's so obviously TRUE. Please tell me more!"?


What if a Mormons says the same words?


So many rival factions of "Christianity".

-while we arbitrarily ignore all the not-Christian-themed God-theories. 


Granted,
 when a JW, a Catholic, a Mormons, and a mainstream Protestant all say: the exact same words about Jesus ...


they all MEAN something very very different by those words.


However,
someone merely hearing that initial sale's pitch ... has no way to KNOW what any of those "messengers" actually mean by any of it.

Nor does anyone already have a good reason to listen to it.


And yet,
 if they do listen,
it's because of a BAD reason to listen.

In any such moment, 
there is a fair chance the listener
will be TRICKED into some bullshit story about "God". 
And why?

Because of common human FAILING; 

-due EITHER to the unfortunately sloppy work of un-guided Evolution,
OR
The even more unfortunately sloppy work of a "designer".


After all, if there is no "designer", then there's nobody to blame.

In that case, it's just another unfortunate fact of common human failings.

Whereas,
if there is a designer,
then that is their fault.

Remember, I cited many scientifically-known examples of failings that alter our cognitions;
all of which are entirely physical.

 If human brains and bodies were designed, then the designer is to blame.

But people in the Bronze and Iron age didn't know about most of that.

Only most of them were literally illiterate.

But ALL of them were scientifically illiterate.

So they didn't account for countless factors of biology, nor how those impact human cognition.

So they just blamed the victims.


If you feel or think a thing ... that you "ought not",
then you are "wicked".

If you fail to THINK a thing you should think (according to whatever they wanted people to think), then, again, you are "wicked".

-Likewise, for all the things those fallible authoritarian cultists wanted their people to do, and all the things they wanted their people to not-do.





Now, we can SAY there is a master designer/creator.

We could (possibly) even be correct about that.

We can even (again) blame the victims of inept "design" to bash/judge all the people who do not PERCEIVE such a Super-Being ... as "obvious" when looking at nature.


We can even go further, to assume there is only ONE of those (despite the fact that polytheism predates monotheism).


But (at most) that gets us to: DEISM.

-- I'd argue it doesn't even get is that far; since "creator/designer" is not synonymous with "God".

But I can grant "god", for the sake of argument.

 It still doesn't get us further than deism.


Meanwhile, ... non-resistant non-believers exist.

Countless many people would be FINE (or even GLAD) to find out that some sort of Creator-Being exists AND "wants a close personal relationship" with them.

They just don't perceive a good reason to think so.


If there is good reason to think so, they just aren't realizing it.

They are not rebelling.

They are not "rejecting" any "God".



I would drop a link that explains this, but I know you won't watch or listen to it.

Meanwhile, ... "the problem of Evil" is insurmountable;


which means Christians forfeit the moral high ground; before even saying a word.

IF There is a creator/designer
then that creator/designer is inept and evil. 

Either way,
humans, as a species, 
are on their own.

Humans, as individuals, have each other.
 
But it makes about as much sense to create a magical STORY that explains why humans do harmful shit to other humans ...

as it does to make a magical story that explains "the fall of dogs" who got kicked of out of their perfect Dog-Park after eating from Sky-Doggy's special tree ...

  to explain why they bark, why they bite, or why their shit stinks. 

If we need a Super-Man to issue moral decrees, 
or if we need equally-magical "Free Will" in order for morality to exist,
then morality doesn't exist.

Fortunately, there are better ways to justify anger at people who cause great harm to non-consenting others. 

Anger is a reflex;
we simply experience it.

The same holds true for compassion, empathy, personal accountability, civic duty, and a wide range of other emotions

However, our so-called 
"moral intuitions"
 that fundamentalists like to pretend have been "written on our hearts" ... 
is NOT a reliable "
moral compass. 

In fact, if we surrender to the BELIEF
 that our "moral intuitions" ARE a reliable moral compass, ...
that is just going to create even more problems. 

Look at how many problems that actually has caused.

Mortal enemies do not agree on who is the "bad guy".
-But there usually is one primary bad guy.
And sometimes both suck.

People actually DO follow their "moral intuitions".
And that causes a lot of very serious problems.



This is why we need to continually UPDATE society with scientific literacy. 

Lack of awareness
and lack of understanding
of our inner workings
causes a LOT of suffering.

Even America's current "legal system" is based on an outdated model of "morality.

Led astray by Christianity, we're still relying on this antiquated notion of "Free Will", to fuel our self-righteous and hate/rage-based idea of "justice". 

So we hear stupid shit from angry mobs, like "Make them SUFFER for what they "freely chose to do!";

-which actually makes everyone less safe.
--

Fortunately,
we have logical reasons
and better-informed methods
 available to us,
to justify wanting and enforcing healthy mutual boundaries. 

We don't need "Free Will" to justify feeling how we feel.

We don't need "Free Will" to justify trying to build or maintain the structures we build systems with.

It's not as if beavers need to invoke Giant Beaver In Sky, to justify building dams.

It's not as if other animals in the animal kingdom need to play such a game,
 just to justify THEIR social-behavioral boundaries

We only need other people to agree to help us enforce those boundaries; in a world where so many people will violate those boundaries if they think they can get away with it.

And for that, we are very fortunate that human civilizations have socially evolved enough that the vast majority can understand the practical benefits of working together.