What Is the Gospel? [A Beginner's Guide to Eternity]
This blog and video response is in direct reply to this "Apologetics Road Show".
More specifically, I'm review this newly released video:
These are my thoughts about the things said in this video:
These are some of the life lessons along the path that helped me to appreciate the wisdom of "Seek balance; in all things". There is nothing balanced about an infinitely intense emotion. Now, I wouldn't normally segue here to talk about the Trinity. However, that videos makes it an issue. So I'll respond accordingly. * There is nothing about Trinitarian rhetoric that makes anything in bibles more virtuous, grand, or even reasonable. It's like if someone decided that God is a Quadrinity. It would not really improve anything. Just like with Trinity rhetoric, It would just make things overly complicated and cultishly numerological. Even if a "God" identifies as three of something, ... I don't see how that factoid could count for more than bonus trivia when it comes to how people relate to that entity. Someone could say that humans can be parsed out as three somethings too. But if I think of someone in that way, this does nothing to improve our relationship.
Pro-social behaviors, and healthy emotions ... do not depend on thinking numerological. But things are actually made worse with Trinitarianism. It authors confusion. It pressures people into dishonesty ... to present humans with a concept they can't grasp and then put pressure on them to speak as-if they grasp it. Whatever we don't grasp ... we shouldn't claim to be holding. Whatever I cannot grasp, I cannot honestly affirm. We cannot offer an understanding to others ... if we ourselves do not already have it. * Time Index 1:53 [in the video] "The Bible can only be understood in light of the doctrine of the Trinity". But this is flatly false; in several ways. First, ... Bibles cannot be understood in light of the Trinity, because nothing can be understood "in light of" something we don't understand. Next, ... Billions of readers have understood Biblical content as unitarians, modelists, etc.. Even if those people are wrong about it, they still have "an understanding" of it. Whereas Trinitarianism actually robs people of any understanding of the relevant bits. It just places a cloud of fog where coherent and well-defined thought would have been otherwise possible. It would be pretty ironic if the only right way to understand key parts of bibles is to adopt a dogmatic set of ungraspable rhetorical utterances ... which place what's written into a fog of "truth beyond our grasp". If that's really the case, then literally none of us understand those parts, nor anything else that depends on understanding those parts.
It's not even really a "doctrine", because it's not really an idea nor a set of ideas.
It's gibberish; dishonestly marketed as a special wisdom.
The early c/Catholic church used it as a way to make the huddled masses feel stupid; so that clergy could seem especially wise to speak of things beyond the capacity of spiritual peasants.
This was especially useful as a mental control tactic during the era when it was illegal (and punishable by death) for anyone except the clergy to even own, read, or recite from bibles.
They wanted to really run it home that the un-special aren't qualified to autonomously explore the mystery of God.
Today, that same game is played by all apologists.
Their entire premise is to "explain" what you couldn't figure out for yourself, because you don't have the official God-goggles.
Meanwhile, Trinitarianism also forces readers to nullify various attached texts. "By "Son", they don't really mean "son"; because Jesus always existed." "By "begotten", and "firstborn", they don't mean he was ever directly created nor procreated". "By "sent", they don't really mean "sent" (nor came, nor went, nor return) because he is eternally omnipresent". "By saying that Jesus HAS a "God" (and that it's the same God we have over us too), ... they really only meant that he IS his own God." "All the times a writer went out of his way to make a distinction between the entity of God vs Jesus ... they really only meant "God the Father" and forgot to say that". "By "died", they don't mean he died. They just meant that his Kosher Jewish Meat Puppet Suit died. Because the actual person of Jesus was eternally, immutably immortal". "By eternal "sacrifice", they don't mean that he really gave up something of great value that he'd never get back. They just meant he had to spend a couple of days not playing with his meat". So when I hear a Trinitarian saying something like "any other view makes understanding impossible", ...
I recognize that as something called "projection".
Trinitarians are copy/pasting their fog-machine onto everyone else, It's like they finished reading a bible and then thought "I bet we could find a way to cram even more gaslighting into this book".
-------- * Time index 3:09
"That I myself may be in them". Here's what I think he means: The writer drew from the idea of what it would be like to be emotionally dysregulated when it comes to "love".
-Although, the writer fails to recognize such extremes as a form of emotional dysregulation. The writer has "Jesus" losing (and encouraging others to lose) all sense of proper personal boundaries; even when it comes to identity. It's not healthy. Granted, someone could theorize and posit that the intended meaning was something more clever, secular and sane like "He just meant that added concepts to their minds via speech and then set those concepts ablaze with the fires of inspiration". But if that's something like what the writer meant, then that's something like what the writer should have said. Religious fundamentalists say intellectually dumb but manipulatively-clever things. And then try to dress it up like special wisdom for the ears of special people. It helps them recruit people who want to feel extra special, and it helps them isolate their in-group. It's cult-tactics 101. None of us should be trying to legitimize any of it. -----------
* Time Index 03:22 Writer/Narrator for this video utters an apologetic explanation of what the actual quote means. They do this under the assumption that readers need this video's apologist to do our thinking for us; else we might go astray with our understanding of that passage. This is, of course, the automatic implication of all religious apologetics. Worse yet, in this case, they do this by making it sound like their explanation was part of the passage they cited. [Time index 03:32 - 03:36 ] In this way, they had added to their own words to their bible. However, this is expressly forbidden elsewhere in their bible. --------------- * Time Index 3:27 Assumes Saul/Paul should be considered a true apostle of Jesus. That is a HUGE assumption that carries with it a lot of problems. But I'll save that set of rabbit-holes for a different discussion. Moving on from there, listener's of this video are told (by the narrator) "Your bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit"
In large part, the meaning of this is to get listeners to feel extra shameful for anything they think and DO with that "temple" that they/we allegedly do not own.
According to these men, "God" gave you that life, that mind, and that body
as a TEST.
A test of what?
A moral test;
to see who is good enough to return that gift into his ownership and say "nah. I'd just end up breaking it. I'm not worthy of this. Please take it back."
Meanwhile, ...
What if you imagine some un-sanctioned sex you've ever had ... and then picture your genitals that were currently occupied/filled with "The Holy Spirit" ...
being grinded against sloppy wet other-people-parts that you weren't straight-couple married to?
You would probably start to worry if you've committed the unforgivable sin (any sin against the holy spirit).
From there, you'll probably double-down on sacrifices you can make to your "God" (via whichever humans you are yielding to as your spiritual leaders) , in hope to settle your fears.
And who will really benefit from those sacrifices?
The very same conmen who guilted you into that panic.
The narrator also cleverly chooses not to cite which book, chapter, and verse this is from.
In a minute, I'll explain why he's so inconsistent about citing bible version, book, chapter, and verse.
It's found at 1 Corinthians 6:19 It's usually cited as part of verses 18-20. There is a lot wrong with the larger statement that Saul/Paul was making there. But I won't go down those many rabbit holes today. Let's just stick to the point this video is trying to make with it. He's trying to use this passage to define what Jesus (in the gospel stories) says about himself being "in" people. But that entire maneuver assumes biblical "univocality"; which is largely rejected by qualified biblical scholars.
And yet, even if we assume univocality, ... the wording of "in you" could still mean something different in different contexts.
Whatever the character "Jesus" was supposed to have meant by being "in" people ... is not necessarily the same as what Saul thought about the holy spirit being "in" people. The writer/narrator of this video has decided (as all apologists do) that they should do your thinking for you.
And yet, they barely even do any thinking here. They're still just spouting catch phrases with hardly any attempt at meaning.
Why?
Because they're just trying to blur meanings. Why? To help the narrator create a vague common-ground between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Why? It's part of the broader effort to push the thought-stopping fog of Trinitarianism into listeners' minds.
[Note: MUCH of what fundamentalist apologists put forth are thought-stopping exercises; ingeniously spun to vaguely feel like completed thoughts.] ----------- * Time index 03:32 "Jesus died on a cross" Note: it was probably not a cross. It was probably just a log-pole, without any crossbeam. This is why some bibles (like the KJV) just say "tree" in some places. If we were dealing with reasonable people, this would not be an important point to make. But since religious fundamentalists are not reasonable people (at least, not when it comes to their religion), this begins to matter. Why they don't just say "Jesus died"? It has to be "on a cross" or "on THE Cross". Why? Because they mentally worship this as a graven image. And also because they want to keep the symbol useful as a marketing icon; to take advantage of "brand recognition". That psychological mechanism draws in more consumers; including more repeat business. ------------ * Time index 03:34 "... to cleanse new temples for God's glory". Writer/Narrator is still blurring/losing distinction between what's actually written vs what he personally thinks. This is actually not a bible quote. It's just the personal narrative interpretation in his own head; being presented as-if any Bible writer actually penned these explanations. To help him pull off this stunt, he purposefully doesn't cite the locations of some actual bible quotes. Why? So that whenever he doesn't cite a book/chapter/verse for his own thoughts ... it will seem to listeners like "this is probably written in bibles somewhere too". #FastAndLoose. #ShellGame.
It's all mental slight of hand. This guy isn't slow. But he's targeting every passerby, with confidence that some will be slow. ------- * Time index 03:38 "Because Jesus has a divine nature, he's the only man in history that could take the full wrath of God". What is the definition of "divine" and "nature", as the speaker means it? He doesn't say. These are just more thought-stopping exercises. It's not supposed to mean anything. It's only supposed to feel meaningful by feeling satisfying to hear. But it does leave me with the impression that "divine nature" means having a very durable set of ass cheeks. As seen here, Jesus is getting ready to take the full wrath.
Roughly two days later (let's just round up and call it three days later), Jesus gets up!
"Shit. That was nothing. I'm barely even sore." "Would you like to sit and have dinner with us, Jesus?".jpg)
"A 2nd "last" supper sounds great. My meat-puppet is famished. But I think I'd rather stand, thanks.".jpg)
-----------
*
Time Index 03:49 According to this, we were created to be vessels whose entire purpose and worth is derived from our usefulness to carry around glowing glops of "God's" radioactive ego. Think, honestly, about how SAD that would be. That a "God" is someone who can't love anyone but himself, and so he "solves" that problem by making sentient mirrors to reflect bits of his greatness back to him. So now he can say "look at all these tiny people I love".
Here in the real world, the EFFECT of thinking in superficial and reflective terms ... has been that people can't see their own deeper and autonomous beauty and worth; nor anyone else's. Whatever they're basing THEIR sense of beauty and worth on, is also what they are using as the basis of YOUR beauty and worth (or lack thereof). -Even your worthiness to EXIST (and be treated well while existing) depends on whatever theirs depends on. They're worth allowing to live forever and in bliss specifically because they are a Christian. Without that, they wouldn't be worthy to live. Thus, as a non-Christian, you don't deserve to exist. In fact, according to their way of thinking, you'll need to die and be thrown away like the trash you are; so that you won't be around to contaminate their future-perfect existence. -- People speak as if it's a MYSTERY as to WHY fundamentalist Christian faith makes most of those believers extra toxic. But it's really not a mystery. Belief in a cruel god coupled with thinking such cruelty is "good" makes people into worse people than they otherwise would have been. We gradually adopt the ways of thinking of whoever we look up to. So in that case, they gradually become someone blind to the beauty and worth of others. They become blind to their own as well. But they've worked (badly) around that problem by losing themselves. In their place stands "God" and he is great. Thus, they've salvaged their worth by replacing themselves with the only actually valuable being that exists. So now THEY (these hollowed-out reflections of an imaginary narcissist) deserve to live forever AND in "glory". But as they see it, non-believers, differently-believers, and the "lukewarm" (healthfully balanced, non-fanatics) do not.
At this point, I'm only 2/3rds of the way through the video. But I find it to be overwhelmingly non-consensually sadomasochistic and narcissistic. I can't stomach the idea of binging any more of it. So instead, let's stop sampling his shit-platter. If you have a glass of hearty ale handy, or even some nice clean water, let's swish and spit, to cleanse our palette. Personally, I like to keep a pack of fresh and minty gum at the ready; for exactly such occasions.
Now, let's contrast that shit with something much healthier.
This movie clip paraphrases a poem written by a theist.
It's a truth
which
the healthiest theists and atheists share.
This is the Theist version of it:
I know Christian-fundamentalists imagine this is what they're already getting right.
But it's not.
They're living in defiance of this, without realizing it. Because they've been trained to lie to themselves and to each other.
This is the secular version of the same wisdom:
Without this understanding,
it's easy to become
and remain
weaponized.
--
A solution is needed.
However, ...
Arguments rarely have any positive effect.
Why not?
Because the deeper problem for these poor lost people isn't a problem with their facts or their logical skills.
Those failings ARE obviously a problem.
But the deeper problem is that they can't see themselves.
And because they can't see themselves,
they can't see anyone else either.
They're afraid to even look.
If anyone could help them conquer THAT,
they would finally want, seek, and find the rest of what they're missing.
Until then, we're wasting our time.
--
--
In closing,
I am dedicating this to "M"
She'll never hear about this.
And honestly
that's for the best.
With the exception of some rare flashes of true capacity,
she couldn't do anything healthy with it anyway.
But I must still give credit where credit is due.
For me, she was one of those "seasonal people".
I am grateful for the lessons she came into my life to teach me.
I am equally grateful for her cutting all ties (regardless of her intentions).
Because that really did help me to move on.
I can't even remember the last time I missed her.
But I do still occasionally still celebrate her.
This next wisdom,
too,
was also brought to my attention by someone who decorated their insights with religious language.
Theists can get a lot of things right ... whenever they aren't mucking around in fundamentalism.
Here is one of my favorite examples of this:
Quite often, in fact,
people DO learn real life lessons
and then dedicate those real wisdoms to a conceptualized parent.
It's not bad to have a parent,
or to "find oneself" under a parental paradigm.
Even fully matured adults can still:
* have a parent,
* have a good relationship with a parent,
and
* allow for that relationship to have 'some' weight in a well-balanced sense of identity.
But it is slowly self-destructive to have a bad relationship with anyone (literally or mentally).
And that's what fundamentalists are caught up in.
Now, I won't sugarcoat this.
Tyler Perry IS a religious fundamentalist.
And whenever he's mucking around in it, pretty much everything he says is shit.
But he does come up for air.
And when he does, he shines.
"M" is a covert and malignant clinical Narcissist.
But every once in a while, she came up for air.
She too would shine.
And then she'd lose herself again.
"M", more than anyone else, helped me understand what it's like for clinical Narcissists.
With her help,
I realized that her disorder is the true foundation of religious fundamentalism.
Despite dedicating herself to a misguided lifetime of both forms of false-righteousness
(martyrdom; extreme abuse of self)
and
(monsterdom; extreme abuse of others),
she still found great courage in moments of clarity;
enough to honestly explain to me what it's like when people can't see themselves.
She was not a Christian, in any official capacity.
In fact, she recognized fundamentalist and moderate Christianity as "a religion for children"
But she reasoned identically.
Just like any Christian-religious fundamentalist,...
1. She was "God";
but
she couldn't just come right out and admit it.
2. Somebody else needed to be saddled with the responsibility of her transgressions
and then die holding those.
3. She imagines a clean slate once "the deed is done".
4. Anyone sufficiently self-sacrificing will do.
She can't think of anything more ironically "perfect" than that.
5. Bonus points if they first suffer long and hard on her behalf.
6. Even the most gentle and constructive of criticisms registers as an attack.
7. She reserves the right decide who you are; rather than to listen and hear about who you really are.
8. Her rights are greater than yours.
Why?
Because all of us are equal. But some of us are more equal than others.
.jpg)
She both suffered and enjoyed the same psychological paradigm as any diehard fundamentalist; thanks to her parents and her sister. Growing up in a pit of narcissists was not easy. I experienced the same thing, as a child. It poisoned me too. But it poisoned me differently. She understood the dark side of humanity with a depth and clarity that was still eluding me. I was trained to gradually incapacitate myself and others as an enabler; by over-giving. I was trained to feel entitled to those "relationship" paradigms; continuing indefinitely, once they begin. She was trained to more directly hurt herself and others; by abusively over-taking. She too was trained to feel entitled to those "relationship" paradigms; continuing indefinitely, once they begin. We were both trained to accidentally install bomb-wicks into our relationships, and then to light those and watch them burn. How? 1. By establishing radically unequal give-vs-take dynamics. And 2. Then waiting cluelessly as the give-source runs out of anything to give and the taker then feels betrayed by the loss of supply. We were also trained to seat our identity "in" others, and to look for people who would make the same mistake "in" us; -but, of course, not equally. -- I really don't know that I could have figured it out on my own. With these insights, she also helped me to understand my other haters. From there, I gained further insights into myself. And yet, even as I gained understanding, I was still not qualified to lead anyone with NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) out of that dark place. Even now, I'm still not. In fact, nobody in the cognitive sciences knows how. But they are working on it. That light is not just in some of us. It's in all of us. Finding it takes the courage to look and then being able to healthfully connect our experiences with our identity. Once we do that, we'll no longer need to rationalize "moral exemptions" for how we treat others; including the people we have supposedly loved. Realizing we are sacred means realizing everyone else is too. What's waiting there to be discovered is NOT the ugly void that bad religions and bad parents "teach" us to expect. Nobody else's greatness needs to be inserted into us; to loan us worth by proxy. Thus, we don't need a Jesus to go "inside" of us. - Nor would that work anyways. A dung clay pot that holds liquid gold ... is still just a dung clay pot. Fortunately, we are SO MUCH MORE than bible writers gave us credit for. My beauty is mine alone to see, own, and celebrate. My failings are mine alone to see, own, and conquer. I didn't cause them alone. But I am solely responsible for what I choose to do about it. We are greater together, only in the sense that we can mutually equip and inspire each other to shine brighter. Whatever beauty I see outside of myself is a beauty I could only experience in the first place because such beauty was already there within me. Every time we experience beauty, we are experiencing and witnessing our own self. When we speak of it, we are telling people about our beauty. Even when someone or something else has a great beauty, it's also ours. That beauty might exist where we saw it. But to speak of theirs is automatically to speak of ours. Rainbows do not provide their own color. You do that. Those are your own eyes. And when you feel it, that is your own heart. If there is a "God" that is "great", then: our ability to perceive that is an extension of our ability to feel. It is born from what already exists within. Some would say "Ok, fine. But he put that there". And I wouldn't presume to know. But they'd be overlooking something essential, in either case. If no such entity exists external to us, this changes nothing. Theists would still be experiencing their own grandeur in response to an idea of someone else's. Some people rely on the idea of "Him" existing, to make it all possible. Some people don't. But the common truth is the same. We are experiencing our own; not someone else's. Still drawing from this same example, in my own personal "course in miracles", ... Every time "M" experienced beauty and joy from music, or from working with horses, or from working with riders, or from great food, long walks, and holding hands on a beautiful Fall day, ... she was showing me her true heart. Ironically, it's a brilliant heart that she never learned to connect with her identity. This is why she could not "see" herself. That, in turn, is why she couldn't see me. That, in turn, is why she really can't hate anyone nor love anyone. Everything seen is through a looking glass; but darkly.
This is why Christian-religious fundamentalists
can't really see anyone either.
However, their religion makes everything worse.
At least secular narcissists are "halfway there" to understanding their own autonomy and power.
All religious fundamentalist can see is "God", "Satan", and lesser reflections of each.
Why?
It's gibberish; dishonestly marketed as a special wisdom.
The early c/Catholic church used it as a way to make the huddled masses feel stupid; so that clergy could seem especially wise to speak of things beyond the capacity of spiritual peasants.
This was especially useful as a mental control tactic during the era when it was illegal (and punishable by death) for anyone except the clergy to even own, read, or recite from bibles.
They wanted to really run it home that the un-special aren't qualified to autonomously explore the mystery of God.
Today, that same game is played by all apologists.
Their entire premise is to "explain" what you couldn't figure out for yourself, because you don't have the official God-goggles.
Meanwhile, Trinitarianism also forces readers to nullify various attached texts. "By "Son", they don't really mean "son"; because Jesus always existed." "By "begotten", and "firstborn", they don't mean he was ever directly created nor procreated". "By "sent", they don't really mean "sent" (nor came, nor went, nor return) because he is eternally omnipresent". "By saying that Jesus HAS a "God" (and that it's the same God we have over us too), ... they really only meant that he IS his own God." "All the times a writer went out of his way to make a distinction between the entity of God vs Jesus ... they really only meant "God the Father" and forgot to say that". "By "died", they don't mean he died. They just meant that his Kosher Jewish Meat Puppet Suit died. Because the actual person of Jesus was eternally, immutably immortal". "By eternal "sacrifice", they don't mean that he really gave up something of great value that he'd never get back. They just meant he had to spend a couple of days not playing with his meat". So when I hear a Trinitarian saying something like "any other view makes understanding impossible", ...
I recognize that as something called "projection".
Trinitarians are copy/pasting their fog-machine onto everyone else, It's like they finished reading a bible and then thought "I bet we could find a way to cram even more gaslighting into this book".
-------- * Time index 3:09
"That I myself may be in them". Here's what I think he means: The writer drew from the idea of what it would be like to be emotionally dysregulated when it comes to "love".
-Although, the writer fails to recognize such extremes as a form of emotional dysregulation. The writer has "Jesus" losing (and encouraging others to lose) all sense of proper personal boundaries; even when it comes to identity. It's not healthy. Granted, someone could theorize and posit that the intended meaning was something more clever, secular and sane like "He just meant that added concepts to their minds via speech and then set those concepts ablaze with the fires of inspiration". But if that's something like what the writer meant, then that's something like what the writer should have said. Religious fundamentalists say intellectually dumb but manipulatively-clever things. And then try to dress it up like special wisdom for the ears of special people. It helps them recruit people who want to feel extra special, and it helps them isolate their in-group. It's cult-tactics 101. None of us should be trying to legitimize any of it. -----------
* Time Index 03:22 Writer/Narrator for this video utters an apologetic explanation of what the actual quote means. They do this under the assumption that readers need this video's apologist to do our thinking for us; else we might go astray with our understanding of that passage. This is, of course, the automatic implication of all religious apologetics. Worse yet, in this case, they do this by making it sound like their explanation was part of the passage they cited. [Time index 03:32 - 03:36 ] In this way, they had added to their own words to their bible. However, this is expressly forbidden elsewhere in their bible. --------------- * Time Index 3:27 Assumes Saul/Paul should be considered a true apostle of Jesus. That is a HUGE assumption that carries with it a lot of problems. But I'll save that set of rabbit-holes for a different discussion. Moving on from there, listener's of this video are told (by the narrator) "Your bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit"
In large part, the meaning of this is to get listeners to feel extra shameful for anything they think and DO with that "temple" that they/we allegedly do not own.
According to these men, "God" gave you that life, that mind, and that body
as a TEST.
A test of what?
A moral test;
to see who is good enough to return that gift into his ownership and say "nah. I'd just end up breaking it. I'm not worthy of this. Please take it back."
Meanwhile, ...
What if you imagine some un-sanctioned sex you've ever had ... and then picture your genitals that were currently occupied/filled with "The Holy Spirit" ...
being grinded against sloppy wet other-people-parts that you weren't straight-couple married to?
You would probably start to worry if you've committed the unforgivable sin (any sin against the holy spirit).
From there, you'll probably double-down on sacrifices you can make to your "God" (via whichever humans you are yielding to as your spiritual leaders) , in hope to settle your fears.
And who will really benefit from those sacrifices?
The very same conmen who guilted you into that panic.
The narrator also cleverly chooses not to cite which book, chapter, and verse this is from.
In a minute, I'll explain why he's so inconsistent about citing bible version, book, chapter, and verse.
It's found at 1 Corinthians 6:19 It's usually cited as part of verses 18-20. There is a lot wrong with the larger statement that Saul/Paul was making there. But I won't go down those many rabbit holes today. Let's just stick to the point this video is trying to make with it. He's trying to use this passage to define what Jesus (in the gospel stories) says about himself being "in" people. But that entire maneuver assumes biblical "univocality"; which is largely rejected by qualified biblical scholars.
And yet, even if we assume univocality, ... the wording of "in you" could still mean something different in different contexts.
Whatever the character "Jesus" was supposed to have meant by being "in" people ... is not necessarily the same as what Saul thought about the holy spirit being "in" people. The writer/narrator of this video has decided (as all apologists do) that they should do your thinking for you.
And yet, they barely even do any thinking here. They're still just spouting catch phrases with hardly any attempt at meaning.
Why?
Because they're just trying to blur meanings. Why? To help the narrator create a vague common-ground between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Why? It's part of the broader effort to push the thought-stopping fog of Trinitarianism into listeners' minds.
[Note: MUCH of what fundamentalist apologists put forth are thought-stopping exercises; ingeniously spun to vaguely feel like completed thoughts.] ----------- * Time index 03:32 "Jesus died on a cross" Note: it was probably not a cross. It was probably just a log-pole, without any crossbeam. This is why some bibles (like the KJV) just say "tree" in some places. If we were dealing with reasonable people, this would not be an important point to make. But since religious fundamentalists are not reasonable people (at least, not when it comes to their religion), this begins to matter. Why they don't just say "Jesus died"? It has to be "on a cross" or "on THE Cross". Why? Because they mentally worship this as a graven image. And also because they want to keep the symbol useful as a marketing icon; to take advantage of "brand recognition". That psychological mechanism draws in more consumers; including more repeat business. ------------ * Time index 03:34 "... to cleanse new temples for God's glory". Writer/Narrator is still blurring/losing distinction between what's actually written vs what he personally thinks. This is actually not a bible quote. It's just the personal narrative interpretation in his own head; being presented as-if any Bible writer actually penned these explanations. To help him pull off this stunt, he purposefully doesn't cite the locations of some actual bible quotes. Why? So that whenever he doesn't cite a book/chapter/verse for his own thoughts ... it will seem to listeners like "this is probably written in bibles somewhere too". #FastAndLoose. #ShellGame.
It's all mental slight of hand. This guy isn't slow. But he's targeting every passerby, with confidence that some will be slow. ------- * Time index 03:38 "Because Jesus has a divine nature, he's the only man in history that could take the full wrath of God". What is the definition of "divine" and "nature", as the speaker means it? He doesn't say. These are just more thought-stopping exercises. It's not supposed to mean anything. It's only supposed to feel meaningful by feeling satisfying to hear. But it does leave me with the impression that "divine nature" means having a very durable set of ass cheeks. As seen here, Jesus is getting ready to take the full wrath.
Roughly two days later (let's just round up and call it three days later), Jesus gets up!
"Shit. That was nothing. I'm barely even sore." "Would you like to sit and have dinner with us, Jesus?"
.jpg)
"A 2nd "last" supper sounds great. My meat-puppet is famished. But I think I'd rather stand, thanks."
.jpg)
Time Index 03:49 According to this, we were created to be vessels whose entire purpose and worth is derived from our usefulness to carry around glowing glops of "God's" radioactive ego. Think, honestly, about how SAD that would be. That a "God" is someone who can't love anyone but himself, and so he "solves" that problem by making sentient mirrors to reflect bits of his greatness back to him. So now he can say "look at all these tiny people I love".
Here in the real world, the EFFECT of thinking in superficial and reflective terms ... has been that people can't see their own deeper and autonomous beauty and worth; nor anyone else's. Whatever they're basing THEIR sense of beauty and worth on, is also what they are using as the basis of YOUR beauty and worth (or lack thereof). -Even your worthiness to EXIST (and be treated well while existing) depends on whatever theirs depends on. They're worth allowing to live forever and in bliss specifically because they are a Christian. Without that, they wouldn't be worthy to live. Thus, as a non-Christian, you don't deserve to exist. In fact, according to their way of thinking, you'll need to die and be thrown away like the trash you are; so that you won't be around to contaminate their future-perfect existence. -- People speak as if it's a MYSTERY as to WHY fundamentalist Christian faith makes most of those believers extra toxic. But it's really not a mystery. Belief in a cruel god coupled with thinking such cruelty is "good" makes people into worse people than they otherwise would have been. We gradually adopt the ways of thinking of whoever we look up to. So in that case, they gradually become someone blind to the beauty and worth of others. They become blind to their own as well. But they've worked (badly) around that problem by losing themselves. In their place stands "God" and he is great. Thus, they've salvaged their worth by replacing themselves with the only actually valuable being that exists. So now THEY (these hollowed-out reflections of an imaginary narcissist) deserve to live forever AND in "glory". But as they see it, non-believers, differently-believers, and the "lukewarm" (healthfully balanced, non-fanatics) do not.
At this point, I'm only 2/3rds of the way through the video. But I find it to be overwhelmingly non-consensually sadomasochistic and narcissistic. I can't stomach the idea of binging any more of it. So instead, let's stop sampling his shit-platter. If you have a glass of hearty ale handy, or even some nice clean water, let's swish and spit, to cleanse our palette. Personally, I like to keep a pack of fresh and minty gum at the ready; for exactly such occasions.
.jpg)
She both suffered and enjoyed the same psychological paradigm as any diehard fundamentalist; thanks to her parents and her sister. Growing up in a pit of narcissists was not easy. I experienced the same thing, as a child. It poisoned me too. But it poisoned me differently. She understood the dark side of humanity with a depth and clarity that was still eluding me. I was trained to gradually incapacitate myself and others as an enabler; by over-giving. I was trained to feel entitled to those "relationship" paradigms; continuing indefinitely, once they begin. She was trained to more directly hurt herself and others; by abusively over-taking. She too was trained to feel entitled to those "relationship" paradigms; continuing indefinitely, once they begin. We were both trained to accidentally install bomb-wicks into our relationships, and then to light those and watch them burn. How? 1. By establishing radically unequal give-vs-take dynamics. And 2. Then waiting cluelessly as the give-source runs out of anything to give and the taker then feels betrayed by the loss of supply. We were also trained to seat our identity "in" others, and to look for people who would make the same mistake "in" us; -but, of course, not equally. -- I really don't know that I could have figured it out on my own. With these insights, she also helped me to understand my other haters. From there, I gained further insights into myself. And yet, even as I gained understanding, I was still not qualified to lead anyone with NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) out of that dark place. Even now, I'm still not. In fact, nobody in the cognitive sciences knows how. But they are working on it. That light is not just in some of us. It's in all of us. Finding it takes the courage to look and then being able to healthfully connect our experiences with our identity. Once we do that, we'll no longer need to rationalize "moral exemptions" for how we treat others; including the people we have supposedly loved. Realizing we are sacred means realizing everyone else is too. What's waiting there to be discovered is NOT the ugly void that bad religions and bad parents "teach" us to expect. Nobody else's greatness needs to be inserted into us; to loan us worth by proxy. Thus, we don't need a Jesus to go "inside" of us. - Nor would that work anyways. A dung clay pot that holds liquid gold ... is still just a dung clay pot. Fortunately, we are SO MUCH MORE than bible writers gave us credit for. My beauty is mine alone to see, own, and celebrate. My failings are mine alone to see, own, and conquer. I didn't cause them alone. But I am solely responsible for what I choose to do about it. We are greater together, only in the sense that we can mutually equip and inspire each other to shine brighter. Whatever beauty I see outside of myself is a beauty I could only experience in the first place because such beauty was already there within me. Every time we experience beauty, we are experiencing and witnessing our own self. When we speak of it, we are telling people about our beauty. Even when someone or something else has a great beauty, it's also ours. That beauty might exist where we saw it. But to speak of theirs is automatically to speak of ours. Rainbows do not provide their own color. You do that. Those are your own eyes. And when you feel it, that is your own heart. If there is a "God" that is "great", then: our ability to perceive that is an extension of our ability to feel. It is born from what already exists within. Some would say "Ok, fine. But he put that there". And I wouldn't presume to know. But they'd be overlooking something essential, in either case. If no such entity exists external to us, this changes nothing. Theists would still be experiencing their own grandeur in response to an idea of someone else's. Some people rely on the idea of "Him" existing, to make it all possible. Some people don't. But the common truth is the same. We are experiencing our own; not someone else's. Still drawing from this same example, in my own personal "course in miracles", ... Every time "M" experienced beauty and joy from music, or from working with horses, or from working with riders, or from great food, long walks, and holding hands on a beautiful Fall day, ... she was showing me her true heart. Ironically, it's a brilliant heart that she never learned to connect with her identity. This is why she could not "see" herself. That, in turn, is why she couldn't see me. That, in turn, is why she really can't hate anyone nor love anyone. Everything seen is through a looking glass; but darkly.
Because all they can see is how everything feels.
And the only way they have
for understanding all of those feelings
is the cult narrative they've been spoon-fed.
They don't understand where those feelings are coming from.
Nor are they prepared to own those as their own.
Their deepest fear
is not that they are inadequate.
In fact, they are in love with the idea of being inadequate.
This safeguards them against ever feeling a need to work past those issues.
The only real trick is trying not to get TOO excited about how lowly they are.
.jpg)
Instead, their deepest fear is that they are powerful beyond measure. Why? Because with such power comes great responsibility. They like feeling unworthy to own their own lives. They even like NOT getting primary (if any) credit for anything worthwhile they'll ever think, feel, say, or do. Nor do most such "eternal children" enjoy taking responsibility for any harm they do in "His" name. They might not WANT to harm anyone. But if severe harm is the result of their preachments, then they'll just say "Take it up with him. Don't shoot the messenger". Most Christians reject full personal responsibility and accountability for their own personal failings. In fact, that's literally what Christianity false-offers to excuse us from. The idea is to choose an available and innocent man to USE as a scapegoat, so that he died while being responsible for your shit. And then, just like magic, those willfully irresponsible people are no longer in any moral debt for anything shitty they've ever done to anyone. It robs them of any moral imperative to keep growing into less harmful people.
.jpg)
Instead, their deepest fear is that they are powerful beyond measure. Why? Because with such power comes great responsibility. They like feeling unworthy to own their own lives. They even like NOT getting primary (if any) credit for anything worthwhile they'll ever think, feel, say, or do. Nor do most such "eternal children" enjoy taking responsibility for any harm they do in "His" name. They might not WANT to harm anyone. But if severe harm is the result of their preachments, then they'll just say "Take it up with him. Don't shoot the messenger". Most Christians reject full personal responsibility and accountability for their own personal failings. In fact, that's literally what Christianity false-offers to excuse us from. The idea is to choose an available and innocent man to USE as a scapegoat, so that he died while being responsible for your shit. And then, just like magic, those willfully irresponsible people are no longer in any moral debt for anything shitty they've ever done to anyone. It robs them of any moral imperative to keep growing into less harmful people.
They might still keep trying to become better people.
But their religion makes that much less important.
It also substitutes real-world-concerns for fantasy-concerns.
Their religion also decides that other people's lives are ultimately disposable.
- Although, the "universal salvation-ists" are less guilty of this than the rest.
For them, you may still be seen as ready for the garbage disposal. BUT their idea of "God" plans to fish you back out and recycle you eventually. In any case, for most, they can go around bragging about a selfish and lazy future of a "clean slate" and heavenly bliss ... that they didn't have to earn. Just as any 5-year old, eternal-children love feeling like Daddy is responsible for them. All they want to do is please Daddy by letting him control their lives. In trade, Daddy will take care of everything. He'll even do their thinking for them. He'll tell them WHO they are, WHY they are, WHERE they are, WHERE they are going, WHAT they must do, and what they must not do. He'll even tell them what they are (or aren't) worth. They like feeling utterly owned and dependent. They've been trained to enjoy it. So it feels like true consent; even though it's actually not. He'll tell them they are good little boys and girls. He'll provide all of their sense of worth, purpose, and identity. All they have to do is "let Him"; - "or else" he will kill them (or worse). But of course, they'll tell you those threats don't matter. They would have surrendered to his will anyway, even without those threats. Or, at least they imagine they would have. Because they don't clearly remember when those threats mattered. Such is the nature of Stockholm syndrome. They identity with their captor; - so much that they've lost sight of where they end and he begins. Thus, if you doubt, question, or find fault with anything THEY ever say in his name, they will say you are doubting, questioning, or finding fault with your God. This is how they place themselves very subtly but very completely into a position of unquestionable and perfect authority over everyone who isn't fully part of their in-group. This is why they can't have an equitable relationship with anyone who isn't fully part of their in-group. This is why they can't have a healthy relationship even with their own self. Their BRAIN has been hijacked by unscrupulous predators; wherein a puppet has been co-created. That puppet's true purpose is for antecedent creators (and every co-creating host) to organize everyone into sociopolitical dominance hierarchies; by force, wherever necessary.
For them, you may still be seen as ready for the garbage disposal. BUT their idea of "God" plans to fish you back out and recycle you eventually. In any case, for most, they can go around bragging about a selfish and lazy future of a "clean slate" and heavenly bliss ... that they didn't have to earn. Just as any 5-year old, eternal-children love feeling like Daddy is responsible for them. All they want to do is please Daddy by letting him control their lives. In trade, Daddy will take care of everything. He'll even do their thinking for them. He'll tell them WHO they are, WHY they are, WHERE they are, WHERE they are going, WHAT they must do, and what they must not do. He'll even tell them what they are (or aren't) worth. They like feeling utterly owned and dependent. They've been trained to enjoy it. So it feels like true consent; even though it's actually not. He'll tell them they are good little boys and girls. He'll provide all of their sense of worth, purpose, and identity. All they have to do is "let Him"; - "or else" he will kill them (or worse). But of course, they'll tell you those threats don't matter. They would have surrendered to his will anyway, even without those threats. Or, at least they imagine they would have. Because they don't clearly remember when those threats mattered. Such is the nature of Stockholm syndrome. They identity with their captor; - so much that they've lost sight of where they end and he begins. Thus, if you doubt, question, or find fault with anything THEY ever say in his name, they will say you are doubting, questioning, or finding fault with your God. This is how they place themselves very subtly but very completely into a position of unquestionable and perfect authority over everyone who isn't fully part of their in-group. This is why they can't have an equitable relationship with anyone who isn't fully part of their in-group. This is why they can't have a healthy relationship even with their own self. Their BRAIN has been hijacked by unscrupulous predators; wherein a puppet has been co-created. That puppet's true purpose is for antecedent creators (and every co-creating host) to organize everyone into sociopolitical dominance hierarchies; by force, wherever necessary.
It's a means to enforce personal agendas;
for anyone who climbs high enough to insist.
It's like the game "King of the Hill";
except whoever is immediately above you
is trying to get more than just their opinions into you.
Hide yo wives.
Hide yo kids.
I ain't even joking.
.jpg)
Our universe might have had some "prime mover(s)". I wouldn't know. Nobody really knows. But if there was, then IT/THEY are absolutely something-or-someone entirely different than what any authoritarian, religious traditionalists "have in mind".
.jpg)
Our universe might have had some "prime mover(s)". I wouldn't know. Nobody really knows. But if there was, then IT/THEY are absolutely something-or-someone entirely different than what any authoritarian, religious traditionalists "have in mind".
Comments
Post a Comment