Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

  Today, someone posted this image to a debate group: My reply: You're a grown man; * playing make-believe * based on subjectively interpreted rumors (nothing more; nothing less) about an * ancient * Jewish, * homeless, * jobless, * violently mood-swinging, * wine-loving, * wandering, * sexist, * slavery-endorsing, * ethnic-religious Master Racist, * doomsday preacher * in a Judaic mystery cult * (later replaced with other religions (including yours) which bear little resemblance to the religion of Jesus described in those stories) ... Who your special-hat-club likes to imagine was really: *one of a god's multiple personalities ... * animating a kosher meat puppet,   * just to create a special theatrical play * when the VOICE inside his head *argued and pressured him (against his will) into * un-aliving himself (suicide by cop) when his "perfect" ass also * committed a "lie of omission" when he was presented with the false charges and decided to humor thos...

Words in Bold Blue print are paraphrases, to help clarify and track the discussion.  If I got any part of that wrong, please let me know. I'll correct it immediately, and then re-share the corrected reply.   Thanks  ------  In reply to this short-clip video,  I said this: re "Confusing does not mean false" --- It does mean false, when you're claiming that dogma was authored to us ... by the very same "God" who "is not the author of confusion". --- In reply, someone else said this: My initial reply is this: ​  @chanano1689  After I read that, a quote came to mind. "They muddy the waters to make them seem deep." In all fairness, I do NOT think most Christians do this intentionally. Rather, they're plugged into a system or "matrix" of mental technologies that gradually installs mindblocks and "redirects", to prevent minds from following dangerous logical paths to logical conclusions. In effect, they ensure...

  ​  @RyanPauly  I had this same conversation with a Jehovah's Witness friend about 14 years ago. First, ... Let's consider the premise for a moment. 1. There is a GOD with multiple person alities 2. With omni-properties that cannot be demonstrated, 3. including omni-properties which contradict other omni-properties; 4. and which contradict the existence of extreme tragedies in our world. 5. "He" sent YOU to commit literal extortion (against literally everyone in the world) on his behalf, 6. While you offer us "protection" from the very same mysterious Boss-man/God-Father you claim sent you. 7. That protection is conditional, based on how we respond to a rumor that 8. A habitually homeless, wine-loving, unemployed, mood-swinging, Jewish carpenter 5. Who (per the official rumors) always identified as a member of the Judaic religion, 6. But actually joined an obscure Judaic mystery cult, 7. Which is PART of the reason why nobody knows...

 Responding to this image of text: I appreciate his awareness. The purpose of a storyteller determines the way it's told.   And yet, I don't completely agree with him about the details of stories. Sometimes, details are just to help the reader project themselves into a space, so they can connect with a happening, to help them connect with a meaning.  Whenever that's the reason for the details, the meaning is NOT the purpose of the details.  Rather, the details merely move us into a space where we can more fully (experientially) appreciate the meaning.  This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I really don't think so.  In any case,  some of what is said in that block of text ... makes me wonder about the beliefs of whoever wrote it. Christian writers didn't get the concept of the Logos from the heavens. They got it from the Greeks. Now, if you want to say the Greeks got it from "above", fine. I  agree, if we mean this metaphorically.  ...

  @ApPersonaNonGrata 2 hours ago Reference point: Time Index 1:23 "Do you love them because ..." a.) reason or b.) reason ?" He gives two really bad reasons, and then phrases it as a false dichotomy, so that fellow Christian religion-ists have to pick the less bad answer. Show less Reply · 1 reply @culturalapologetics 22 minutes ago I basically said a) selfish b) unselfish. I’m curious to hear your c) @culturalapologetics  I recognize that "a.)" expresses the "transactional values" understanding of "love" that is symptomatic of the Major Personality Disorder of "NPD" (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). Now, as it happens, a "transaction values" understanding of virtues (such as "love" and "justice") is exactly what determines the primary Biblical deity's own values. "God loves (whoever)" .... based on "a.)". "a.)" = Whatever someone can do for Go...