Gods Exist; As A Way Of Thinking And Speaking That We Can Grow Past

[Version 3.0

Please pardon the typos and other "wonk".
This is a work in progress.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated. But even if all you do is read it, I'll still be very grateful. 
Thanks]
======


Some people worship actually-existing things; like the Sun. 

Some Sun worshippers proceed without assuming the Sun is sentient. 

They have that relationship to the Sun, as a brilliant, live-giving, and sometimes punishing power. 

It's a humbling awe.

It's also an idea that informs them of who they are.

They are a recipient of life from a personified life-giver. 

They are a subject to the threat that anyone who dares stare too long at the Sun may be struck blind.

They are subject to limits and consequences, if they spend too much or too little time in the Sun's presence. 

The Sun blesses us caretakers and sharers
of the abundant life that the Sun imparts. 

The Sun makes sure the lakes and sky share their life giving waters.

It directly helps ~shape~ ever Sun-worshipper's narrative
 of place and purpose in the world. 

But what about when this way of thinking goes further?

What about when the person thinking in those terms
also ascribes literal agency and will to a conceptualized super-parent?

IF we aren't very very careful about how we build the foundation of this idea, ... 

we could be creating a special opportunity;
a platform for exploitation.

We cross that line when we give that super-parent the words they speak. 

It's too much power for any human to wield. 

Parents oversee.
Parents inform. 
Parents reward. 
Parents set limits.
Parents punish. 

And sometimes parents punish all the kids;
even if only some have misbehaved.

 This is, of course, a parental failing; born from stress, impatience, and a lack of clarity about which kids have contributed to that day's chaos. 

 But parental failings are always part of the parental character that gets created by flawed humans. 

For the most part, human parents are clueless about parenting. 
I've been around long enough to say this was very justified confidence. 
So whenever humans try to script a Super-Parent,
that Super-Parent will be equally clueless. 

Today, science has made great advancements 
into more healthy and effective parenting models to guide would-be parents with.

However,
that is mostly wasted on the Super-Father of both popular and fringe religions. 

Child-minded,
Slave-minded people 

who mistake "Him" as real

will feel utterly wrong
to even suggest changes "He" could make to how "He" parents. 


Ironically, the "Biblical" Hebrews realized how problematic that is.

So they created a "Biblical" religion 
where part of a High Priest's job was to convene with "God" regularly, to let "HIM" know when it was time to make some needed changes to how HE parents and what HE expects of his children. 

But Christianity is a whole other thing.
That idea and practice is forbidden in Christianity.
So the only way "HE" ever gets updated
is whenever his children re-imagine what "He" [quote/unquote] "meant all along". 

 This, for example, is how the Quakers were able to get "God" to decide slavery is bad. 

 They became better people WITHOUT His help. And then they read their maturing values back INTO the texts. 
So then it "became true" that HE was always against slavery and wanted something done about it. 

But this type of graduating maturity doesn't happen so willingly among religious conservatives. 

That's why they aren't called "progressive".

They're not interested in progress.

Sometimes they make peace with progress that happened in the past; but only once they've acclimated to it.

And that's when they rewrite their religious and political history, so that "they" fought to make those changes happen.

They feel a need to forget how their religious clubhouse was actually the enemy of that progress. 

It was THEY who everyone else had to fight against, to accomplish that progress;
each and every time. 

In any case, they don't like to think forward; at least not when it comes to earthly problems. 
[aka: the real world]

They like things just the way they are. 

And that's mostly because "the way things are" ...
are personally advantageous

to MEN,

and to WHITE PEOPLE,

and to violently insecure, paranoid,  controlling narcissists (aka "religious conservatives"). 

 So they figure "Why fix what isn't broken?".

So they'll ignore what we now KNOW is a healthier way to parent.

The script for "Him" has already been written.
The ink is dry.
Now we're stuck with that version of "Him".

And I say "we" because those authoritarian cults are always Hell-Bent on making their bullshit a problem for everyone.

Humans who believe in such a Super-parent will "deduce" that Super-Father is counting on his BEST kids to keep the troublemakers in line;  
or else all may suffer his wrath. 

Whenever "He" is modeled on a clinical Narcissistic and Psychopathic parent (as the Biblical "God" was). ... 
that forces his "Best" kids into the roll of Flying Monkeys.

Worse yet, because those kids will strongly identity with "Him", they will strongly Empathize with "Him". 
And that makes them very angry when "bad kids" are hurting Father's feelings. 

This is exactly the same psychological phenomenon that Professor Paul Bloom speaks of, when he explains how "Empathy is bias" and how that bias is too easily weaponized as a skewed sense of "defending the victim". 

I myself have personally experienced this during a breakup;    
when my EX seized the opportunity to weaponize the empathy/bias of "her people"; getting them to commit crimes on her behalf, as an imaginary victim.  

It was her Christian friend that committed those crimes for her.

It was her Christian friend who had been dog-trained by their religion to think in terms of exaggerated polemics.

It was her Christian friend who was accustomed to having their empathy weaponized by romanticized martyrs crying "who will fight the good fight in my name?". 

It was her Christian friend who got all their "morals" from a messy compilation of ancient mythology.

Those books fail to mention what to do in those circumstances. 
And they aren't allowed to GET their morals from any other source.
So Todd had to feel his way through it.

  It's the same with Todd's OTHER cherished narcissist.

Those stupid books weaponize the faithful on "His" behalf, in the name of "doing the right thing".

This is how someone like Rebekah (Bread of Life) thinks and feels about atheists. 
She openly admits this. 

It's why she has made it her passion to help colonizing religious conservatives conquer the nation (and maybe someday the world) ...
in their fantastically destructive "totally not a war". 

She says it's not a culture war.
It's not a war of competing ideas or values.
It's not any kind of war. 

She says we should quit calling it that.

It's a friendly competition, between sides that hate each other.

And her side is going to win this "totally not a war"; no matter the cost.

No matter who has to lose liberty.

No matter who has to die.

Why? 

Because SHE has lived for a while in Muslim Sharia-Law countries.

There, SHE realized how many people had to be outlawed, hunted, imprisoned, tortured, and killed, to create those societies.

It's unfortunate. 

But the end result is "beautiful".

Nobody there DARES make Father cry.

Every conversation there included praise of God. 
And she wants that to happen here too. 

 But let's not call that colonizing.

While the rest of humanity is forced to fight back, ...
Let's not call that a war.

Calling that "war" is just bad for marketing. 

So let's call it "Christian soldiers" reclaiming nations for God. And not taking "No" for an answer. 

Now, you and I may recognize just how fucked up all of that is.

But that descent in "lovingly" violently Orwellian madness was entirely inevitable. 

When someone's able to sell that idea to someone else, 
they now have power over whoever they've sold it to.

The more people that idea spreads to, the more power the spreaders will automatically have.

The more power they have, the more they want.

Power corrupts. 

Fear worsens. 

"Hope" becomes an increasingly selfish and dystopian fantasy. 

That's what so much power inevitably does.

From there, they will begin to feel entitled to the submission of everyone who refuses to surrender.

This is how religious Judaism, Christianity, and Islam became so aggressively colonizing. 

It all starts with that one simple idea; that there literally is one ultimate Super-Parent looming above. 



Monotheism is the most destructive concept humanity ever invented. 

The entire purpose of it is to consolidate power,
to maximize and secure the power and privileges of a small ruling class of elites. 
 
Towards that goal, it always gets marketed as securing national interests, 
against threats from "dangerous" others (foreign and domestic). 

 
Monotheism takes root very easily.

So then the question is ... why?

Why are humans so easily amenable to the entire notion of being helpless children
 owned as property 
 by a distantly hovering and selfish parent who "can do no wrong"? 

The roots of that pervasive weed 
develop in our infancy.  [<-- link] 

"God" is an  idea that other humans graft onto leftover neurological wiring  
from the relationship we had with parental figures
in our infancy. 

And yet, because we have uniquely formative experiences with parents.
this factors heavily into what paradigms we'll each individually be drawn to as adults.  

That phenomenon ~does happen~ in reality.

 Therefor, some gods do exist.

 

​But I reject that relationship paradigm (for myself) 

when it comes to any-and-all possible things.

Why?

Firstly, because I'm not neurologically wired the same way. 

 "Baby Boy Apperson" was even more neglected as a child than most kids.

There was no bond for me to miss.

There is not much related wiring for anyone to exploit.
There may be some. But it's not enough to create the illusion that monotheists are trying to project. 

Just as importantly,
 I reject the idea that anything could possibly exist which deserves the title.

So now,
what do I mean by "deserves"?

Curiously, 

the term "God" is simultaneously a gesture of ultimate respect (as an intention)

and yet

ultimate disrespect (as a reality). 

I want no part of that. 

Quite frankly, I'm far too troubled by the realities of life, to INTEND ultimate respect.

Nothing so powerless 

OR so unwilling

to prevent so much suffering

should be fitted for such a crown. 

 If any sentient entity 
intentionally willed me into existence, 
then they have violated me into existence.


This life
was not theirs to gamble with.

Your wasn't either.

Granted, many "God"-fans would disagree.
They would say it is "His" life to gamble with for his own needs or wants.

But that's their slave-mind speaking.

Some people think Might Makes Right.
 
Some people think that children are the playthings and property of whoever brought them into this world.

They will reason and speak accordingly.

However, it's neither healthy, nor safe, nor "just" to reason as such;

especially not when we're supposing other people should be subject to the same disrespect and enslavement.

If you want to think of your OWN life as a toy and as property to some Cosmic Sky Parent (who doesn't take good care of their toys), then go for it.

But other people's lives aren't beholden to your masochism.

They aren't here for your amusement, or your whim, or your darkest fantasies.

Their lives are not anyone's to own.
You can think otherwise.
But your thoughts shouldn't be someone else's problem.
  
Such fantasies are born from un-wellness
and create further un-wellness.

If any such super-parent exists,
it would the opposite of "good news". 

And yet, 

I'm not troubled ~enough~ by the idea of it ... 

to outright abuse any possible super-parent.

And that's exactly what Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are doing. 

Bibles and Qurans are Creator-Slandering propaganda. 
But the focus today is not all the things they say ABOUT a Creator which are so blatantly slanderous.

Instead, today, focus is on the problem and remedies of  the pervasive ideological weed called "God".  

I'll explain in a moment, why I say it's a disrespect to call anything a "God".

 

Now,

I turn my focus inward.

 On one hand,

I'd enjoy and benefit from being un-troubled; 

-at least 'on occasion'. 

 And yet,

I don't really know that I want to make peace with the horrors of the larger reality of our world-happening.

 Why not?

Because I don't want to become numb or partially-blind the plights of the endangered and the suffering. 

 I see that happen all too often
 with people of faith.

It's a form of selfishness that greatly reduces those people's actions to help make this world healthier and safer.

In fact, quite often, being a person of faith
 inspires destruction in the lives of others. 

But as I see it, faith in general isn't the problem.

It's specific iterations of faith that cause so many problems in our world.

It's strange to notice how faith, for most people, is an extreme form of selfishness; 

dressed up as altruism.

Meanwhile,

I'm sure my own PTSD plays a part in my stubborn attachment to being a disgruntled captive to everyone's suffering; including, of course, my own.  

But I do take solace in 

~the logically-deduced fact~ 

that:

No sufficiently reasonable ENTITY 

would ~take offense~ to my 

~active-disinterest~ in being a self-denying sycophant. 

 

Nor would any such entity insist (or even want) for me 

to surrender my identity to the "authority" of other humans;

not even those who claim to speak by a greater authority than their own.

In fact, I realize:

 To regard the words of other humans

as the words of our "God" 

is to worship those humans as our "God". 

So the very thing religious people will say is a terrible act of "idolatry" ... is the very foundation of their entire religious narrative. 

No respect-worthy super-person
would put us lowly humans in such a position, where we must forsake the very same ideals
they want us to represent.

Therefore,
logically,
reasonably, 

ethically, ...

we can safely deduce:

 no such entity
did any such thing.

"Religion" 
is just humans
playing selfish and stupid games with each other's lives. 

It's better to ground our narrative of "self" independently. 

Although, to clarify, 

 It's not "me" I want to ground my identity in. 

It's not really a meaningful thing to say, because it's circular. 

Instead, I simply do not welcome the demands of other humans ... who are trying to force their sense of entitlement upon me ...
to write MY story ~of~ "me" ~for~ me.  

 I'd rather see that story unfold (be written) as it will.

The kernel of my personality holds the pen.

A desire to keep writing towards an ever-better and more richly experienced "self" moves the pen.

- All while the willful act of LIVING provides the details of the story as it unfolds. 

==

Religious people keep coming up to me, trying to con and coerce me into handing them the pen.

They demand access to the empty page. 

Here, they want to write.

But that book is SACRED.

And it's mine.

It's my right and my responsibility.

It's my truth and my beauty. 

It's also my lie and my ugly.

All of it belongs to me. 

All of it is my responsibility. 

I will not surrender it to another. 
 

Here, they want to tell me WHO I AM. 

Here, 

I realize. 

Here 

is yet another person

looking for vulnerabilities to exploit. 

They're acting like it's about me.
But it's not even a little bit about me, except that they've 'sized me up' as a potential mark for their scheme. 

It's like when I get swarmed by mosquitoes.
It leaves me wondering what made me look like a good source for a great meal. 
 
Maybe any warm body will do?

And yet, 

in the spirit of leadership,
and of peace,
and of love, 
I refrain from squashing them. 

 

Nothing is accomplished 

if I punch an opportunistic identity-vulture in the face.  

Plus, some of them have good intentions.

And I suppose that should count for something.

Beyond that, it's all physics anyways.

So if they're saying/doing something that 'they aught not', ... it's only because:

 physics insists.

Tampered-with mental operating systems

do tampered-with things. 

They're as much a helpless victim to it

as they're hoping I'll be.

It's all just "a happening".

Meanwhile,
I know what kind of happening I want me to be.

 And yet, I fully acknowledge and respect religious narratives 

as something real, and as individually beneficial.

Many people DO feel like 

some specific conceptualized entity 

is worthy of worship-level respect.

Many people do get some benefits from projecting their self as a character in stories other people have written. 

However,
even if I leave room for the idea of a "Prime Mover", or source of all coherence, logic, love, etc ... 

That's not the same as leaving room for the idea of a "God".

Even if

a similar entity exists,

and 

even if 

someone could convince me of that, ...

I still would not call it a "God".

Why not?

 

For starters, I would not feel the level of awe that the title infers.

 

Nor would I feel that much respect.

Nor would I feel that much disrespect. 

[I'll explain in a minute why I say it is a form of disrespect to call anything (or anyone) a "God"] 

Thus, a Creator would not be a "God" to me. 

It would only be a "God" to:

a.) whoever emotionally tastes (experiences) something ~a certain kind of way~, 

and then 

b.) digests and metabolizes it in a certain kind of way. 

It can be such a powerful experience that

it has an overriding (overwriting) impact on the enthralled person's narrative of personal identity. 

So then they are not merely a person who perceives x-entity (as real). 

Nor are they merely feeling certain kinds of ways about it.

It's more than just that.

Once that process runs its course,

they are now someone who seats the core of their identity (their primary idea of "who" they are in the world) 

in relation to that conceptualized entity.

But that's really really dangerous, when other people are writing the script. 

With or without the dogmas of "script"-ure, 

It's always transformative to "let it in".

 

That's what it means for it to be living and breathing "God". 

It "lives and breathes" within the experiencer.

It's not that someone thinks it's literally breathing with literal lungs. 

Or, 

even if they do think of a literal entity literally breathing, ...

It's still more than 'just that', when they describe the Entity as a "living and breathing" God. 

Now, I suppose this would be a good moment to stop and reflect on how ancient "biblical" cultures thought about it.

Their ideas about it helped form people's later ideas about it.

When their "God" breathed ~the breathe of life~ into the clay ...

 Adam (man of the dirt) began to exist;

as "a living soul". 

 The breath (Pneuma ) that gives life and IS life ... was (to them) an entirely physical reality. 

Their "gods" were entirely physical beings.

That breathe was the breathe of life-giving gods. 

I say "gods" (plural) because they didn't really have just one of those.

 Modern religious communities have altered the lens that most readers read with; creating the illusion of monotheism in those stories.

However,

it's simpler, easier, and more relatable (for most readers) if we just speak in the singular about "god".  

So that's what I'll do here.

It was some of his energy; the very substance of his own person. 

This is also what they meant when they said the "spirit of God" hovered above the waters during creation. 

They were talking about the literal wind. 

That's where they thought the wind comes from 

and 

what it consists of. 

They noticed 

breathing it IN ... gives life. 

And they noticed that people who die ... surrender their final breathe back into the world. 

They also noticed  

being highly stimulated or active 

made them feel more alive.

They also noticed that they breathed more heavily at those times.

They also noticed that FIRE is the same.

The more air/spirit reaches it, the more ALIVE it becomes.

They also noticed that the flora of nature somehow became more "alive" when the wind sweeps through it.

They watched.

They saw.

They listened.

They heard.

They breathed.

They felt. 

 And to them,
this was the breath (the spirit)
of "God". 

All of this 

is where they got the idea of their god's physical "spirit" being breathed into Adam; to create a living physical soul.

Every person was a soul. 

And that soul was made ALIVE by the
breathe/energy/substance of God. 

In this way, every living creature on the Earth 

was connected 

and shared a common spirit.

This might also explain why some shellfish was an "abomination".

Any bottom-feeding sea-life that doesn't need air (so far as they could tell) ...

was going to be seen as lesser (at best) compared to everything that breathes in the spirit of their god for its life. 

 

Today, 

however,

most people who have an affirmative narrative for a conceptualized "God" 

are less literal and more ... foggy about meanings.

 

To a large extent, we can blame science and reason for that change.

As people gained understanding of what AIR is and how it works as wind, and how it works in the body, and how it effects fire, etc..

it became less of a mystery. 

But that's a problem, because:

Just as our body breathes air,

faith breathes mystery. 

Without mystery 

(In other words, if we know how the trick is done),
faith is lost. 

Even with just enough knowledge (or rational scrutiny) to "fade" faith, 

it becomes less "alive" in how we are moved to imagine and feel. 

It's the same with love.
If we truly and fully understood everything about LOVE from the vantage point of physics,
it would lose most of it's flavor. 

We can see comical expressions of that problem
explored in the TV series called "The Big Bang Theory". 

I chose this scene as an example 
because it also touches on the problem of an external locus of identity.  

But for the immediate purpose, this is only presented as a reminder of how being overly-rational about matters of the heart can come at a cost. 

In this case, the more mature woman in this scene is oblivious to how disconnected she herself is from her own emotions and from being able to really "get" what someone else is going through. 
 
It creates a space where beauty and connection have been sacrificed in trade for academic rationality. 

.

 In this way, we begin to lose "inspiration" (another word that has its root of meaning in the literal act of breathing). 

Sometimes, there is power and beauty
in the space where we don't have all the answers. 

So to restore lost mystery, 

modern spiritualists started to devise mental fog-machines. 

This can be done in harmless and beneficial ways.
For this, Native American Indigenous Spiritual narratives are a great example to consider. 

But it can also be done in ways that let other people hijack our journey.

Some people are so in love with their enslavement
that their captivity is sacred. 
 You might be able to tell by how I worded that. 
 I am not entirely respectful of this. 

And yet, absolute "freedom "
is "just another word for: nothing left to lose"
 -Janice Joplin. 

So how much personal freedom constitutes a healthily balance? 

The Teal Swan argues for a form of voluntary ownership between a man and a woman;
called "containment'.

Whereas, some argue for mutual commitment between social equals. 

I'm not sure what the latest science really says about that.
I haven't been keeping up on it. 
Nor do I think "one size fits all".

So I'd argue for a very deliberate but adjustable  middle-space between the extremes of total freedom vs enslavement. 

I really can't endorse religious fundamentalism as a good guide for finding a healthy balance between the self and anyone (really anyone) else. 
 
I'd argue it would be hard to get more unhealthy than that. 
But we can still observe their method and its effectiveness. 

From intentionally vague and religious language (such as "essence", "transcendence", "spiritual", and increasingly foggy uses of the term "God"), 

~to~ 

intentionally foggy pseudo-concepts like the Trinity, 

 

These fog-machines help create a mental place 

set aside where fog interplays with light.

  

This creates a sacred space within the mind.

Now, I'm willing to call the fundamentalist version of that "sacred", in honor of the Eurhythmics.

"Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This.
Who am I to disagree?".

But I think it's more accurate to say there are ELEMENTS of scared truth which do get preserved and utilized;
as they combine those with some impressively ironic,
 self-abusive dogmas. 

It's not all bad.
It's not entirely even wrong.

But that's what sacrilege means. 

In order to disrespect something sacred, 
they must include the thing that is sacred.

Regardless of who
and 
regardless of how,  ...

In our sacred space,

we can lose ourselves;
 in a good way,
or a bad way,
or both (in different ways). 

There, we can escape and recharge from the rigid and demanding realities of the physical world. 

In this space, we become more fluid in our thoughts. 

In that space, we are not pushed around, because we give ourselves over to it. 

We become willingly "one" with the happening. 

We become like a drop in the ocean,

or a leaf in the wind; 

giving ourselves over to an internal journey of personal experience; an experience that takes us wherever it will. 

There, FAITH is a feeling.

Whenever it's ONLY that, we find the truth of BEING;
without the distractions of DOING. 

But when we add the process of thinking ABOUT that faith, ... 

  that wind of feeling
can suddenly carry many leaves of meaning.

Here, it is possible to experience harmony;
 
between the pure simple truth of BEING 
and 
the weighted complexities of our many past. present, and future happenings. 

We can tell that we've achieved that state of harmony between these two realities, 

as soon as FAITH means "everything is going to be ok".

 

A more powerful form of that harmony,
but even more elusive.
is the state where 
"everything already is ok.

And it will always be ok". 

 
Few ever experience this.

Fewer know how to return.

But none ever remain there.
Nor would I advise this, because:

 In this peaceful state, we lose access to all urgency.
And with that, we lose too much of our interest in building a better world. 

Ideally, we would spend a productive amount of time in each of these states. 

In our optimal state of being,
in the shared space between the BE'er, the observer, and the DO'er, 
we gain empowerment from a perspective of oneness;

oneness with the ultimate whole of the larger and purposeful happening of all things. 

 

It's a rhyme and a reason that we recognize as real, and that we take solace in; 

- Even if we cannot be sure of what that "reason" is. 

- And even if we cannot account for exactly how it rhymes.

It's enough to "be" within it 

and "of" it;

even if we do not know much more about it. 

 In fact, for the necessity of mystery,

 it's even better if we don't have much we can say about it.  

As for me, 

I'm just not "there" right now.

I've been there.

That's how I can write about it.

In fact, this very morning, I saw a new video where someone proposes a possible reason for why I haven't made it back there yet.



I'm still pondering her explanation for this. 

Meanwhile, my willingness to ponder the insights of others ... is made possible by the awareness that I don't have all the answers.

I DO sometimes lose sight of who I am.
And I'm not always so sure about why.

I have, however, noticed how often non-religious people are just as sure about "who" I am
as religious people. 

But non-religious people usually only convey that through antisocial behaviors. 

Whereas, religious people tend to take a more ... direct approach, by literally trying to TELL me who I am and what I'm worth. 

I need to get better at ignoring both. 

But when I find my way back into the light of life, love, and peace (more completely),
I won't be letting discordant others give it voice.

Therefore, they will not be giving ME voice.

I'll speak for myself; just the same as the wind that carries.

Even then, I won't call it "God".

I seek a less 'anesthetized' relationship to the knowns and to the mysteries. 

 I don't ever want to get so high

that I can't properly hear, see, and feel

the truths of others (nor of self). 

 

We see that happening in the headspace of fundamentalists, when they demand to tell US (you and me) what we really think and feel. [<-- link] 

They can't hear the wind as clearly as any non-dogmatic spiritual person can.

They can't hear the sound of us either, 

over the sound of the contrived story playing in their own head. 

Meanwhile, 

I don't ever want to bend so low

that I accidentally disrespect the greater whole of "all that is"
by disrespecting myself; who is a part of the whole. 

I would be disrespecting myself
to call anyone or anything "God".

 Because
to bow so low
IS a disrespect to our self. 
 

Good health and good function

define a healthy relationship.

 

Good health 

requires ~balance in all things~.

We cannot be truly honoring the source of all life 

and all the good things in life

if we approach it through the self-abusing and mutually-disconnecting sentiment of inequality. 

 It's not a respect-worthy thing
to grovel around on the ground
in search of some ultimate boot to lick.

And let's be clear about this.
That IS
what it means
when a religious fundamentalist says we should "search for God". 
--

We are not lesser than

something of which we are from and of. 

The term "God" disconnects and disrespects.

Healthy relationships are fully mutually equitable. 

Inequality is abuse.

So unless someone's ultimate ambition is to be as ironic as possible, ...

The more respect we have for something or someone, 

the less interested we'll be 

in calling it "God". 

So every time I hear someone saying they have a personal relationship with a personal "God", 

they're telling me they haven't yet matured into a deeply and durably healthy relationship
with their own self. 

I hope they get there. 

I hope, for my own self, that I do as well. 

No better and truer place could there be, 
to truly meet each other, ...

than the place where we can truly meet ourselves.  

I've met myself so many times.

And I've gotten separated from myself just as often. 

Only very rarely do I entirely lose sight of who I am.

Sometimes I'm blurry.

Sometimes I'll well-defined.

Sometimes I'm tragic.

Sometimes I'm glorious. 

Often do I wonder about which of my truths I've yet to discover.

And yet,
religious fundamentalists aren't trying to meet themselves, because they've been taught to feel fear and disgust about the self. 

They're trying to escape and be rescued from themselves and from the larger world. 

So they run hard, they breathe heavy, they feel a lot of things, and they make a lot of noise. 

This is why
they are never
~quiet enough to hear~

nor
~still enough to "be"~.  

This is the core problem for everyone afflicted with clinical narcissism.

But let's be clear about this.

I am NOT saying that all religious fundamentalists are clinical narcissists.

Rather, religious fundamentalism is a complex social and mental system 
designed BY clinical narcissists,
as a way to train all members to emulate and celebrate those ways of thinking. 

As a result, members are trapped in a perpetual need to disavow an ugly, empty, or otherwise worthless self.

They suffer a frantic need to 'ease the pain' of that dilemma.  

It's a very serious problem.

Neglectful and abusive parents cause it.

Granted, such abuse and neglect does not ALWAYS create a narcissist. 

It does not even always create someone who is a Cluster B personality. 

But if all children got everything they need as they grow, 
exactly nobody would end up as a religious fundamentalist. 

Authoritarian religious cultures attract, worsen, and perpetuate human dysfunction. 

The afflicted keep that problem alive
by refusing to admit that their glorious "solution" is actually a serious problem. 

They're so CERTAIN of their core nothingness (or worse than nothingness) that they strive to find alter-identities to seat themselves in, to borrow "worth". 

This is what it means when a fundamentalist says "Without God, I am nothing".

Those alternate displays of identity are what's known as "the narcissist's mask".

For some, "God" is that mask. 

For some, getting married is (they hope) going to provide for a more good and respected premise of identify. 
Granted, some measure of that can be healthy.
But taken to extremes, it's not. 

For others, their physical beauty, their valuable possessions, or their personal accomplishments are that mask.

For such-minded people,
even the stuff they really SHOULD count as part of their identity, ...
never really feels like it is. 

They treat their best qualities and accomplishments like a mask, because they don't know how to own any of it
as part of their "i". 

So they only PRETEND to feel good about themselves.

They PRETEND to count their actually-amazing beauty as part of their truth. 

They feel disconnected from all of it.

And that's what "God" is being used as a substitute for. 

They feel connected to a "Him"
who then connects them to an "i" they can feel good about.

But that "I" is worse than a lie.

Its' an externally projected locus. 

That ~surrendering of power~
means a surrendering of personal responsibility. 

This is what it means when a religious fundamentalist admits to not being able to decide for themselves what count as good or bad. 

As such, they remain internally disconnected and blind to their personal power, beauty, and responsibility. 

They remain unable to take proper credit for their own truth, beauty, and power.

In fact, that what "The Holy Spirit" is, when Christian fundamentalists speak of it.

It's them ... refusing to recognize and own 
their own thoughts, feelings, and beauty.
So they say "Oh, those are coming from someone else. The Holy Spirit who deposits/fills me with whatever it finds me worthy to receive". 

As a result, they're staring themselves right in the face ... but think it's someone else.

This is how they are prevented from meeting themselves.

And because those thoughts and feelings are ascribed to "a perfect" being,
literally EVERY SINGLE ONE of those thoughts and feelings are firewalled away from all rational scrutiny, because "it would be wrong to question God".

That effectively makes THOSE thoughts and feelings
and all attached thoughts and feelings
issues they cannot do proper discovery and growth about. 

As a result, they remain unable to take true responsibility for how
their tormented vacuum of identity 
 AND
their self-abusing version of self-less-ness
 is hurting others. 

It's preventing them from healing, growing, and seeing past a need for that big messy pile of cheap drugs and re-used needles they call "God".

It's a highly consequential form of escapism. 

 

 

These videos (above)
are speeches that were authored by rapidly maturing people.

Maturity isn't a destination.
It's a journey.

But that journey does have some pretty definitive milestones.

Certain landmarks provide an objective measure of how far we've come.

There are some hills
upon which 
which we can see even further than we could before. 

But there is always a delay
between the moment we no longer need training wheels or raincoats
vs
the moment we move forward without them. 

Those speeches were written 
in monumental moments of transition. 

Only in getting to "a place" within ourselves 
can anyone then go further. 

But that only happens when we plan to keep going. 

Nobody keeps growing towards a light they feel they've already reached;
nor towards a light they fear.