Christianity's Credibility Crisis. How Randal Rauser Is Misunderstanding That Crisis.

[First Draft. And also probably the last draft. 
I don't really care about the typos. 
Chances are, nobody's gonna read this anyway.
It's just a 'thing' I felt like writing today. ]

 Dear Randal, ...

[My inner dialogue: "Dear"? Really? Isn't that a bit overly personal, and bordering on intimate?" "Is this where I should say #NoHomo?" "Lol, nah. But it is kinda cringe." "Kinda. But "Attention" sounded like I'm setting the stage for condescension. Whereas, "hey" sounds like I just saw a friend in a parking lot and I'm wanting to catch up." "Ok. But you could just skip that part entirely." "True. But I want the reader to understand from the start that the narrative perspective I'm writing from is "to" someone.", and I wanted to start off as non-threatening as possible". "Fair point. But you could set the stage for that, here, by just saying something like "This blog is written as a 'reply to' Randal. As such, This will read as a direct address to Randal." "Hmm. Great point, honestly. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I shouldn't address it to him at all." "Why not?" "Dude seriously thinks I'm beneath him." "That much is obvious. But that is almost certainly not personal." "How is is not personal?" "He's a Christian. " "So?" "So there's no amount of "progressive-ness" in Christianity that can ever really purge that religious theme of being severely disrespectful TO and ABOUT everyone who isn't a Christian. The entire theme of being "a Christian" automatically frames a person's narrative as a social polemic. This is exactly what Jiddu Krishnamurti was talking about. That way of thinking, in and of itself, is antithetical to the awareness, harmony, and health of the larger living, breathing whole that is US. Worse yet, it's extra-especially problematic because it's drawing from a violently polemic library of religious texts from-which he gets his personal identity and ways of thinking. Granted, he's been able to mitigate a lot of that damage, by reading it through a progressive SECULAR HUMANIST filter. But there's no way to avoid all the poison; because every word in there is poison. Even the "love people" parts are poison, because it's said in a context which: a.) is meant to "love bomb" and lure/groom naïve readers into thinking "this looks safe and nice". and yet/also b.) defines "love" the way clinical Narcissist's define love; as a transaction between: * a Narcissist (in this case, a Narcissist parent) and * their supply/sheep. His whole channel is just trying to bicker with his religious siblings, as they disagree on the best way to a.) make that family look good to the public b.) feel better about themselves (as special people, in a special-people family), c.) make Daddy look not-evil [For this, Randal's preferred strategy is: throwing many of the writers 'under the bus', to say "what they said was bad. Let's just admit. And then we can just say they weren't really speaking for Daddy."] and d.) stop it from becoming the history's next dead religion. Granted, Randal has a lot of evident empathy for those rival apologists. But even that's not the flex he thinks it it. As professor Paul Bloom points out, "empathy is bias". That religious bias is actually a form of racism.

Randal is wrong think there's a way to Make Racism Great Again. It was never great. Nor can anything truly great be built on the "rock" of that foundation. The Biblical Hebrews were explicitly racist. Everything they said was from that perspective. Jesus was a racist too. Both of those religious cultures were built on an abusive and artificial social construct. That premise automatically leverages the interest of the in-group against the interests of everyone else; even if they don't realize it. Being also a "religion" ... does nothing to make it fit to build something great upon. Religion captures and holds a mind into a form of identity politics. Identity politics foster group-think within sects. But it also fosters division between the sects. It also enslaves the ego and renders it fragile to criticism. This is why he avoids engaging with incoming criticisms, and just wants to focus on the faults of others. This is why he ignores everything you ever say at his channel (and at yours). This is why he keeps worrying about the effect other apologists are having on the 'branding' and the tribe. He cares how it looks to 'the world'. He realizes how that terrible public image is, because of how rival apologists are soiling it. He wants 'his people' to take a different (potentially more effective) strategy; for how to distance themselves from the 'family secrets'. That includes the evils of "Father", the complicities of "The Son", and thousands of years of evils committed by "the family". With that, he wants Christianity to BECOME a beacon of light and hope in the world; instead of: merely PRETENDING to be that, while actually being the opposite of that. But he can't DO any of that, if most other apologists (aka Flying Monkeys; aka Daddy's Little Enablers) are still relying on a strategy that makes Christianity look even worse. People are waking up. People are no longer DUMB ENOUGH to buy into the established apologetics. As a result, Christians need a new strategy for how to distance themselves from the entire history of that religion [except for some few moments in history where people wielding that banner actually did something good for the world]. Conservative apologists are only making it worse for themselves, by gaslighting everyone about how "not bad" biblical content is, lying about their religion's history, and by spewing harmful rhetoric "in the name of love". That entire Conservative Fundamentalist Apologetics culture ... is the reason Christianity is dying. Randal realizes how that depletes the social and political power and prestige of the everyone who flies the banner of "Christianity". With all of this in mind, he doesn't feel like he can afford to dignify your civil and constructive criticisms. He has a paradigm to popularize. And it's built upon a narrative-perspective which does not account for the points you're making. He doesn't know what he can (safely) do with it. So he avoids it. It's the same reason Gavin Ortlund avoids Randal." My inner dialogue about all of this, ends here: "All great points. But I've already written this blog as an address to Randal. It would eat up even more of my time and energy to rewrite it as just a topic thesis. I'll leave all of this here, so that readers know why I originally wrote it as an address to Randal.]
-- Here is the clarity I wrote 'on offer' to Randal. Perhaps someone else might benefit from it. Randal, ... I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

In fact, I usually agree with 'most' of what you're saying, when you go up against fundamentalists. However, ... here is something super obvious that you keep missing: No human has ever lived nor will ever live who warrants the degree of *credibility* required for them to: a.) claim for themselves and/or b.) be rightly regarded as ... someone *qualified* to speak on behalf of any literal and perfect Omni-Person(s). They aren't. I'm not. You're not.

So when you make fully fair and valid points about how "those guys" aren't, ... you're are correct; but you're still not getting it. The men who copied and adapted locally popular literature and other culture's religious concepts, to create biographies and messages about "God", ... were not qualified. The men who eventually wrote down versions OF those stories they heard ... were not qualified. The men who eventually decided to make a "Bible" out of those writings ... were not qualified. The men who eventually (at various times and places) decide which pages to bind into "canon" (and which not to) ... were not qualified. The men who eventually tried to translate from available 'source texts' into modern language ... were not qualified. The men who took it upon themselves to "explain" what any of it "really means" ... were not qualified. The men who took it upon themselves to tell others how any of that 'ought' or MUST be applied to people's personal lives ... were not qualified. Parents who play that role with their own children (and sometimes other people's children) ... are not qualified. The men who claim they can 'tell' that a perfect and holy "Spirit" guided them INTO their correctness-es, ... are not qualified to make that assessment either. The only people qualified to tell me, you, or our children what a "God" thinks ... is that "God". Not even a literal "angel" (if one existed) should attempt that, because anyone they visit and speak with would have no objective way to know that angels is who-and-what they appear to be. "For all they know", it could be an advanced alien, a human huckster with great magician skills, a delusion, a demon, a jinn, a ghost, a cryptid, or something we don't have a name for. Plus, the only way to impart a "perfect message" is to bypass language altogether and feed the information directly past a brain's linguistic-interpretative mechanisms; else the human will still misunderstand. Language assures misunderstanding. After that, once that misunderstanding has transpired, the messenger will have no way to realize, identify, nor fully correct the misunderstanding. However, even if Super-Beings DID impart understandings in that ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE and strategically PRUDENT way, ... they'd run into yet another serious problem. Someone who spends a *moment* in "perfect understanding", will soon experience a corruption. That human will change their perception of the message (thus, changing the message itself), without realizing it; as those ideas sink into a bath of ever-changing neurochemicals.

Besides changing chemical states, there would be a constant interplay between a.) the memory of the communication and b.) new neuro-connections being formed between that experience and other experiences. Science has made this clear. Memories change. But we don't realize it. That means the memory of a "message" will change. That means the message will change over time, even just from sitting in their head. - And also even if they actively engage with it every day. The person will not realize that it's changing. "God", if we assume he exists (more or less as described by popular God-guessers), failed to adequately design us for the task of receiving insights he both pre-planned for us to need and pre-planned to sloppily provide. Meanwhile, what "God" needs is: to start existing. So he can start salvaging his rep (and our lives) with his own better choices.

Fundamentalists, like everyone else, are doing the best they can; to understand the broadest scope of our existence. The EXTENT to which they fail would be comical, if it weren't so tragic. But you can't read, logic, or ethic them into correction. Even IF we are going to assume "we better get it right", people can't will-power their way past the physical limits of their cognitive abilities. Most wrong-people will remain wrong no matter how hard they try to be right (about God-stuff). And NOTHING said in Christian stories ... offers a true solution for that problem. Why not? 1. Because the writers were not qualified to offer one. and 2. Because words can't function as a solution to that problem. Even if we want to pretend those writers got any of it right, ... Each individual reader is still getting it randomly wrong. Worse yet, some of those wrongs would be morally and spiritually signficant; enough to be consequential.

Meanwhile, ... Confident-wrongness, about any issue that matters, is orders-of-magnitude worse than mere ignorance. Now, I don't happen think the God-stuff matters; EXCEPT FOR how the CONCEPTS impact how people relate to others, to the ecosystem, and to themselves. But I realize you DO think it matters to a "God", and you DO think it 'should' matter to all humans. Humoring that, for the sake of argument, ... If you're one of the lucky few who gets the God-stuff right, then you won a very twisted game.

But that wouldn't help the rest of us. My reasons for getting the God-stuff theoretically-wrong ... would be different than Alan Parr's reasons, or Mike Jones' reasons, etc.. Is "wrong"-doctrine good enough, if someone has "right living"? Is "right living" good enough, if someone has "wrong doctrines"? Bible writers (or translators) seemed to think everyone needs *both. [*Not that Christians agree on what "right living" looks like. Nor what "right doctrine" looks like. They can't even agree about that "love" is] In any case, being "wrong" (about "God") is never freely chosen. Nor is there a cure for being wrong about "God"; unless the atheists are correct. But even then, known cures for religiosity only work on random people. For example, so far, those known cures haven't worked on you. And why not? Because: just like the apologists you try-and-fail to reach, ... you've all made prior commitments, and then solidified those with deep personal investments. You've allowed it to define you. That's what locks you into your commitments, the same as what locks those other guys into theirs. You can't let yourselves be wrong. And there's no point in you or them ... appealing to help from "The Holy Spirit" either. Because (as "Sir Sic" would say it ...) "magic doesn't real". Meanwhile, if you thought those men's best efforts (and yes, they really are doing the best they can) was good enough, ... you wouldn't be doing these videos where you try to reason with popular Christian apologists. And if you thought "God" could be trusted to handle it, you wouldn't be trying to artificially create a miracle via arguments. In any case, their severely unhealthy relationship to their own egos ... will prevent them from the growth you're trying to lead them into. People only grow past the dysfunctions they heal past. People only heal past the dysfunctions they stop feeding. People only stop feeding the inner monsters they stop needing. Some people literally can't. Randomly-other people COULD stop needing it. For them, that would take being uprooted and replanted into a healthier environment, with a healthy daily routine. But you aren't in a position to offer anyone that. Although, again, it's not your job to rescue a Christian deity from demented fans. Nor is it your job to rescue a "God" from his own poor "human design", messaging methods, and "grand plan" choices. Nor is it your job to rescue Christian sheep from Christian wolves; at least not generally.

Nor is it anyone's job to rescue assholes from themselves. Nor is the "God of Abraham" real anyways. Maybe some sort of Super-Being(s) exist. But they aren't "Him". -- I understand you don't normally respond to worldly people. And if you ever did, it probably wouldn't be with the patience you extend to your tribe's spirit-wolves in spirit-sheep clothing. But I'm no longer interested in a communicated response. I merely noticed you were stuck on a fruitless loop.

I also noticed how the so-called "atheist community" barely notices you. That's because that social ecosystem prefers to focus on people who make them angry.

Granted, you do say some shitty things. And you are still doing P.R. work for a religious domain which still crushes humanity under heal. But (currently) you aren't aiming the barrel of your religion at people outside of that bubble, for the most part. Thus, you don't get noticed very much by people outside. Of the few "big names" who do randomly notice you, it's mostly just to inflate their ranking in the debate scene. Even while they have your attention, they stay too distracted with the debate topics to even talk about the bigger picture that you're missing. And since none of your people are going to point out obvious (because they are too close to see it) ... that leaves very few people in this world who are really looking out for you. However, this will be the last of the bottled messages I send floating towards your island.

May the journey provide.