Culturally Radicalized Rando Projects His Failings Onto Randomly-Chosen Others

Today's insanity  
began with this: A page called "multi tasking mom" promoted her God-Awful, colonizing, super-abusive religion 
on a group which has fuckall to do with her religion. -- "multi tasking mom" posted this:

I'd love to share the Verse of the Day with you!
‭1 Corinthians 13:4 NIV‬
[4] Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
#Godblesseveryone

Upon seeing that, I was tempted to outline everything that's wrong with that verse. 

I chose, instead, to ignore it. 

However, ... 
In reply, someone named Jay Anderson wrote:

"I never agree with these godly verses from the bibble"



In reply, "multi tasking mom" said something entirely irrelevant to what Jay Anderson said. 

In reply to that, I merely pointed out that she was off-topic. 
Although, I found a clever way to point that out. 


Now,
at this point,
I had said NOTHING AT ALL about my views about Jesus or Bibles. 

And yet, 
 here comes some rando named "Scott Leisman" ... to lecture me (and talk down to me, aggressively)

about a ton of crap I never said anything about.

Ironically,
he also adds a jab about my "reading comprehension".

Everything he said to me (and about me) was ironic because:
 
Everything he says to me is born from:
 
a.) him being off-topic (while not even realizing it), 

b.) him having poor reading comprehension.
[It was a very simple conversation. But he wasn't able to follow it]

 
c.) him knee-jerking due to his own prejudices,

and 
d.) him failing to understand a collection of Iron-Age-Nonsense that he thinks Jay and I are failing to understand. 

However, I enjoy these mental exercises. 
I also enjoy cutting through gaslighting bullshit. 
And THAT is what makes this worth writing about. 

Thus, here I am; about to obliterate every bit of his bullshit. 

However, please note that I am not holding it against him that he's a pro-Trumper who is "against" fascism. 
  
How can anyone just not-notice that the GOP is pro-fascism and that Trump is extra-extra Fascist?

It boggles the mind. 

In fact, most Biblical preachments are as fascist as it's even possible to be. 
And that's why moral-authoritarian versions (all the traditional versions) of Christianity are so blatantly fascist. 

Regardless, 
I was curious about the extent of his fandom about Jesus, so I went to his FB page. 

There, I saw very little about religion. Most of it was the ramblings of a very well-intending but radically-non-self-aware American political fanatic. 

He's correct about the "Democratic" party AND about the roll mass-media plays in politics and brain-washing their viewers.

But at the same time,
he's curiously non-aware of how he got suckered into the opposite side's even-more-aggressive (and far more fascist) PSYOP.

None of that effected my evaluations, here, because I didn't even learn about that until after I'd written the rest of this blog. 

However, it did prove clarifying about his psychology.

That, in turn, helped me understand why he so aggressively accuses others of his own failings. 

Radically non-self-aware people 
 aggressively "project". 

Will he realize this about himself?
Nope.
But my reply isn't designed to help him with that impossible goal. 

Even though the following reply will be 'framed as' being directed at him,
it's only really a mental exercise for my own benefit. 

So here it is.

In reply to this:

 
I offer this: 

1. It's a really bad social, marketing, and colonizing strategy, to talk down to people you are witnessing to.

2. That's not what Matthew 24:3 says.
You're thinking of Matthew 24:4.

3. In Matthew 24:4,
Jesus is only talking to his 1st-gen followers.
Those are the only followers he was ever supposed to have.
Why?
Because he (Jesus; that literary character) prophesied the end of the world would happen in their life time.
#ProphecyFailed.

For clarification on this point, 
most scholars think there was a real "Jesus".

They also think he really was in (and quickly rose to the top of) a Jewish doomsday cult.
They just don't think he really ever gave the famous "Sermon on the mount". Nor do they think the real person said anything about himself dying for anyone's sins, nor rising days later from death, nor returning yet again to judge humanity. 4. That passage is fiction. That conversation never happened in real life. But regardless of it being fiction, ... it isn't about warning every human (present and future) about the general idea of "try to go through life without being misled".
Although, that would be a wasteful piece of advice.

5.
Nor was it a warning for his listeners and readers to never let anyone deceive them about what's in a Christian Bible.

Christian Bibles didn't even exist.

It would be wholly unreasonable to tell his friends to avoid being tricked when reading a book that wouldn't even exist until centuries later.

6.
Nor was there ever supposed to be a Christian Bible.

7.
That verse is only about his first-gen followers not being deceived about identifying fake 'returning messiahs'.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion that you're attempting to derail (under the pretense of trying to be helpful).

 
8.
How do we know that one of his original followers expected him to die for anyone's sins, nor to return a couple days later, nor to ascend into Heaven, nor to return again 'someday'?

Because none of that stuff is what the Hebrew religion predicated a messiah would do.

After Jesus failed to do what the Jewish messiah was prophesied to do,
his cult assigned new meanings to the Hebrew messianic prophecies.
After that, fans began to weave creative fictions about Jesus' life, to "fulfill" those new ideas.

9. re "authors gave hundreds of other very sound advice"
--
At most, there are a few halfway decent piece of advice; if we're being very charitable.

But hundreds?
Nah.
Damn-near everything in there is irrational and abusive.
For examples of that, check this out:  [Link] 

10. "advice in a book that ... you 'have nothing to do with (it)'."
--
Here I am, involving myself in a discussion ABOUT said book.
I'm pretty sure that counts as "having something to do with it".

But if you mean that I'm choosing to ignore inches-thick of great wisdom, then:

a.) you had no way to account for how much I know (about what's in there),

b.) you had no way to know what I think about each individual thing in there,

c.) it's only your opinion that everything in some "inches thick" of The Legends Of Jesus The Super Jew are worth respecting and heeding.
I happen to not share that opinion.
However, at the time (when you raised that issue), I had not (yet) said what I think.
11.
Jay Anderson merely pointed out that Christian Bibles lost all credibility with him as a worth-considering source of wisdom ...
when one of its most prominent authors openly promoted sexism against women, and then no other writer or character ever bothered to refute him about it.

The collective-whole is proven-unworthy of respect. 

If Bible-story binders and peddlers 
didn't want readers to regard that collection as a collective-whole that stands or falls on the merits or demerits of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in there, 
then:
 They should not have bound the bad-parts in with alleged good-parts, called it "canon", and then called it "The Bible". 

However, ... 
Jay's point wasn't "one author said an evil thing. Therefore no other bible-writers could have possibly said anything good".

His point was "why bother sifting through piles of anti-ethical bullshit looking for sweet wisdom-corn, even if there is some such corn in there?"

12.
"i try to read (such) books objectively,"
--
 Everyone tries to.

However, I understand what you're inferring.

You think you are making a good-faith-effort to do that.
And you're basically accusing me of NOT making a good faith effort to do that.

But when you accused me of that, by posturing over me as a lead I should consider following, ...
 
you had grossly insufficient data to justify that assumption. 


13 
 "I not try to find things to reinforce what i have already concluded based on my own ignorance."
---
Again, I understand what you're trying to say.

You're accusing me of:

a.)  'confirmation bias',

b.) not having enough personal integrity to at least TRY to notice when I'm guilty of it and then TRY to rise above it, 

c.)  having a strongly negative/prejudice bias (at least partly because of Paul's ugly ramblings). 

d.) allowing that prejudice to skew my lens,
which then results in ... 

e.) blinding myself to the wonderful wisdom of Jesus of the gospels. 

ALL I SAID 
in the ONLY post I'd made so far (at that time, in that discussion) was to point out (to "multi tasking mom)

Mark 12:30-31

either:

a.) disagrees with Paul (about his sexism)

or

b.) agrees with Paul (about his sexism) 

or

c.) has nothing to do with it.

Summary:

All I did
was:
point out to multi tasking mom that she was entirely off-topic.

I didn't say anything at all about my views about Jesus, or bibles, or anything else (yet; at that time).

But then you imagined a bunch of crap I never said.

And then you imagined a ton of crap about me (as a person) based on a conversation which (at that time) had only happened inside your head.

So then you aggressively talked down to me; based on all of that.

In-so-doing, you projected all of your most prominent failings onto me.