They’ll Sacrifice You to Protect the Brand of God

[first draft] 

In reply to that video, 
one man wrote:

"Why must i be respectful? I dont respect your purposeful misdirection.

Encouraging people to seek God's revelation is not at all protecting the organization of what we now call the church. This is not at all a misleading premise. Do you have any idea how many times we are warned in scripture of false leaders, false teachers, and not to be lead by man's teachings? Have you actually studied the scriptures? Because according to this video i have doubt. Please dont discourage people from seeking God." - John

In reply, I offer this: First, of course, it makes sense that since Bibles encourage readers to "to seek God's revelation", and also say to be on guard about "false teachers", ... A believer is going to treat those ideas as reasonable, possible, and necessary. However, the point offered against that is: Bible writers themselves got this wrong. So then appealing to Bible writers as the BASIS for saying Bible writers got this CORRECT, ... is circular reasoning. So then, why do we think those writers were being unreasonable when they called upon readers to identify "true understandings" and "true teachers" vs "false teachings" and "false teachers"? Please note, first: I am willing to translate any of the keywords and phrases in the video. However, after fully expanding on the meaning of that video's very first phrase (in this blog) "You follow man, not God", I realized there's probably no need to explain the other key words and phrases. [Although, it is a little strange when we need to explain Christianese to a Christian] However, if anyone would like to hear me explain specific other words and phrases, just let me know. So then, what does the phrase "You follow man, not God" mean?

The meaning of that phrase depends on the context. It can mean that we are allowing "worldly" men to guide our logical processes and moral values; thus, rendering us incapable of rightly understanding and appreciating the wisdom imparted by God. It can also mean this: "IF you have any fair criticisms to make, or any fair justifications for a negative response to something, then: That "something" (whatever isn't good) ... is something that humans mistakenly attributed to God. So then "God" and his church/bride/people remain blameless. Because God (through his faithful and appointed servants) only says and does good things." The implication, there, is that our disillusionment with churches, leaders, or doctrines means: Whenever harsh criticisms are due, ... Those voices weren't really speaking for God in the first place. So then our perceptions that Christianity has failed us ... is always "wrong". Because either a.) WE failed the true church by being unfair in our criticisms OR ... b.) A specific church was led only by MEN and not really by "God". In this case, the accusation is: The true church STILL did not really fail us. That, in turn, would mean it is still **us** (critics) that failed "The true Church". In this case, the accusation is: We incorrectly blamed the true church for the attitudes, preachments, or actions of either: a.) a false church OR b.) a false preacher (within an otherwise good and true church). In doing so, we have unfairly besmirched the reputation of the true church. The secondary implication of that is this: "You made an understandable mistake when you followed MEN and mistakenly thought you were following God. But it's not too late to correct that mistake. This time, find a church (OR, stay there and replace him with a true pastor) that follows only God. ... And then you won't have those problems in the future, because a truly God-led church will always do right by you.". But here are the problems with that: 1. Every church says things in the name of "God" which are logically fallacious, irrational, and counterfactual. 2. Additionally, every church has serious ethical failings baked right into its core theological commitments. 3. Additionally, it's a false promise, regardless, to say (or imply) that a truly God-led church will always do right by us. Each and every church (eventually, inevitably) ends up with some serious scandal. Right now, yours is sitting on a powder keg waiting to explode, just as soon as some victims start coming forward. I know this because "People are people." and because "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." Speaking for an ultimate, perfect, and unquestionable authority, and then also having that premise of "station" DIGNIFIED, ... is a position of great power. Although I'd go further than that, to say it's a position of "absolute power".

Someone could argue that it's not absolute, because any church member is allowed to notice and object if a pastor gets "God" wrong. 

 However, 

1. Just try saying so. And see what happens. 

 Expect to be accused of sowing division. Some other (highly probable) responses include: 

[Facebook link] 2. There really isn't an objective way to measure the interpretations of a pastor against the meaning of a text.

Why not? Because those texts do NOT give meaning to us. Instead, we give meaning to the texts.

Yes, I realize that Christians habitually disagree and deligitimize secular scholars, based on "Those scholars can't be right, because we are". However, this specific point is a matter that all fully credentialed linguists agree on. ~The actual physics in play~ when a reader "unpacks" words from a page, ... works much differently in the mind than how churches assume/pretend it works; especially when the meanings are understood to express value judgements and metaphors. It's not like an IKEA instruction sheet that says "Insert tab labeled 1A into slot labeled 1B". To fake-solve this problem, fundamentalist churches say "pray about it" and "trust the Holy Spirit for guidance". However, the "Holy Spirit" is merely every individual's subjective mental processes and emotional intuitions. Calling those things "The Holy Spirit" is an irresponsibly dangerous way of thinking.

Worst-case scenario, we: *generate, * camouflage, and * protect significant abuse. Best case scenario? It solves nothing. Because the only way to resolve the problem of different people getting different "answers" from the "Holy Spirit" is to defer to the authority of the church; the "voice" of which is the very same human voice being called into question. From there, if a detractor isn't willing to lower their head in submission about the issue they're in disagreement about, they'll probably just leave to find a church that agrees with what they think "The Holy Spirit" revealed to them. Or else, they'll go rogue. In any case, why would I say that way of thinking generates abuse? Besides the points made in the "Mindshift" video, I'll say this about it: Easily-accessed "stations of power" provide (and advertise) obvious and significant opportunities for covert predators. This is extra-especially true for religious power structures, because: They include magical thinking, which claims that an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present Super-Parent is appointing those men and protecting those members. This effect is further exaggerated when members feel emotions that are falsely attributed to experiencing "The Spirit". So they'll reason something like "God was truly alive in our pastor today. He spoke truth into my soul! Truly, God has called our pastor, and called us to his church!".

They're sure the Holy Spirit has shown that man to be righteous and fit. So then they'll be quick to overly trust a man that they don't really know. This lures members into a false sense of security, while promoting fallible men as the appointed spokesman of an infallible "God". "Of course you can have private counseling sessions with my teenage daughter. And of course you can take my 8yo son camping".

When the proverbial shit hits the fan, church-loyalists will just default to saying, "We are all sinners. Don't blame God's church for the failings of the people who ARE that church". This makes it an unfalsifiable proposition to say "a true church will always do right by you". When it fails, loyalists will either say: a.) "We don't believe the people making the allegations." or b.) The Church's failure doesn't count as a failure of the Church. In effect, a church ends up carrying out its true role ... as an abusive and unaccountable Narcissist Parent Pro Temp [<--link] [aka "Parent pro tempore" or "parent pro tem"]  
And then loyalists end up performing as flying monkeys.
This impulse will be generated by Identity Politics. But it will be greatly worsened by a naturally occurring drug called "oxytocin".

[Facebook link] [This next link is pending. I need to relocate the video clip I want to share for this link.] To their credit, early Jesus-cult writers realized this was an avoidable consequence of their ideological movement's intrinsic dispositions and core tenets. To their deficit, they decided to pretend that's a good thing. # Marketing.
This means that an "intelligent designer" "Intelligently designed" his own FANBASE to turn against all outsiders [ie. derisively calling us all "the world"]. It also turns believers against each other. This is a direct result of Christianity thinking "He" is DIRECTING YOU to identify as members of an in-group, ...coupled with the direct results of a corresponding neurochemical reaction. This, in turn, puts all Christian churches into a position where they simply must blame their own victims. "You can't be right, because we are."

And so now, you'll feel a need to denounce those who pose a threat to the public image (or "brand") of Christianity. With good intentions, that way of thinking will compel behaviors that directly harm innocent others. [link] It also obligates Christians into the role of Bad Faith Actors in debates. [link] Although, I don't want to focus on that here, since there are more immediately severe consequences due for our attention. Meanwhile, the "God" credited for calling, luring, directing, seating, and integrating vulnerable humans INTO that situation ... gets zero blame for "delivering" innocent soon-to-be-victims (eventually, factually, victims) into the hands of covert predators and unaccountable churches. The common Christian narrative is that it's "God's will" for those people to find themselves THERE, in those places, at the mercy of those people. And yet, it's not God's fault, because "God can do no wrong". Meanwhile, Christians are self-deceptively pretending that there's a difference between "men" and "God". For the purposes of this discussion, ... I am going to assume there IS an intelligent "Creator" who willed us into existence. That's because I don't want any Christian forgetting that this conversation is not (at all) about whether or not such a BEING exists. So then, there is a "creator being". Fine. Hurrah for DEISTS for getting it right! I guess. But that's not the ENTITY that ANY Christians are ACTUALLY following. In EVERY religion which claims to follow any literal Super-Person(s), ... The "God" they actually and experientially "know" ... is a psychosocial phenomenon. It's a mental construct. "He" is first given identity and "voice" by other humans. And then, gradually, increasingly, by each host-human's own mind. "God" is "known" and "experienced", and "indwells", and is "a living God", because: It's a hijacked and partitioned part of a person's own mind; -which religious others deposit a story-character "God" into. "He" comes alive within a subjectively experiencing mind because the evolving idea of "Him" draws heavily from a person's own lived experiences. It's very similar to the way humans give "voice" and personality to a pet.
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

It's also what causes pets to be so deeply endearing and internally bonding. 

We accidentally create an entire personhood for them.

That "person" deeply resonates with us specifically because those projections make them into exactly who we desire them to be ...based on whatever void we're seeking to fill in our life.

We often do this accidentally with other people too; 
-in both positive and negative ways. 

This is why the fully formed expression of "God" is truly unique within each person. This is why no two people have ever even mentioned the same "God". They may all be drawing from the IDEA that there is only one GOD that everyone "has". And I can just grant that they are correct about that. But no two people are really experiencing the same "God". The "God" you know ... is like the pet you know. It's not the same dog anyone else experientially "knows". So then, where do we get our ideas about "Him" from? "God" is a complex viral memetic.

It spreads virally from person to person. As it spreads, it adapts to the mental landscape of each new host-mind. This way, it can be accepted as true. Those necessary and automatic adaptations are subtle changes. From there, as the years progress, each believer's lived experience is constantly causing their own mind to change. That, in turn, causes their conceptualization and "relationship paradigm" of "God" to keep changing. This is the real reason a believing reader will get something new from a passage they've read many times before. Mental changes generate ever-increasing divergence in how each member (of a church) perceives "God". To mitigate that effect, church leaders have the necessary role of "shepherding". This involves sermons that maneuver congregants to "seat" (or "contextualize") their own lived experiences within the context of a religious narrative. So then, for example, a church that believes in literal demons might say that certain specific thoughts or feelings are the product of demonic influences. They might then suggest that this is happening because a worldly person (or demonic media, or demonic object) has been allowed into their lives. So then a listener will think "So THAT's why I keep having that thought (or feeling)!". Whereas, a different church might offer a completely different explanation. For example, they might say "Your own conscience is simply making you aware of an issue you need to work through.". Again, congregants will say "So THAT's why I keep having that thought (or feeling)!".

At that point, of course, the shepherd will generously offer to help guide that sheep away from divergent thoughts or feelings, towards uniformity with the rest of the flock. It's very risky to allow or encourage sheep to think for themselves. "Shepherds" must keep correcting for the divergent experiences, thoughts, and feelings of their sheep. "God" can't do this directly. "He" runs into that same limit of power when he tries to spread his super-duper helpful truth-fire across the world.

God is like a frail old lady. For "God", there are barriers in the way; such as time and space (and money). He needs help crossing those roads; to reach the people he's chasing after.

He needs help from human heroes! You too can be a necessary vessel for GOD! This is literally what it means to be a shepherd. Whenever your thoughts, feelings, or journey begins to take you freely in a different direction than where a controlling guide intends, ... They will say whatever they need to say (within the limits allowed by their religious culture), to bring you back into synchronized thinking, feeling, and living. Towards that end, they must try to convince you that's what "God" wants. They'll feel justified for doing that, because they believe "God" is wielding authority over your life **through** that leader. To accomplish this, moral-authoritarian, literalist, conservative churches must (at times) make all their sheep doubt and reject their own diverging thoughts, feelings, and experiences. [Facebook link] However, Sometimes, consequential differences are not realized. Any two people can sit in the same church pew, sing the same songs, hear the same sermons, and give mutually compatible testimonies. But the "sameness" of their respective concepts of "God" is an illusion. There's a world of difference; meaningful difference. But they don't realize it. Some of those differences COULD be articulated and discovered. But probably won't be. Some other differences might NOT be articulate-able. Some things just can't be. This point is made here, with differently-religious examples. Please note: What he calls "the transcendent" is not necessarily limited to objective realities. It can also apply to subjective (and thus, individual) realities.

It doesn't mean someone is "correct" or "incorrect" about whichever thing can't be put into words. Correct vs incorrect are dualities which depend on objective references. Granted, sometimes something which cannot be put into words can be objectively true. As such, its negation would be objectively false. But in some cases, even those can't be put into words. So then if person-A has an objectively true perception about a "God" which cannot be put into words, then someone else who may be objectively wrong about it (or missing it entirely) ... would never realize it. Again, who and what "God" is to one person ... will always be substantially different than who and what "God" is to anyone else. Often, however, someone's conceptualized and experienced "God" becomes so obviously **not the same* as someone else's ... that they must part ways as believers. As a result, there are tens of thousands of rival sects, and even more rival individual claims of "God". And yet, sometimes a Christian realizes that Christianity DEPENDS UPON following men "as God". There's no way around it. When we place (regard; treat; accept) the words of ANY man as the words of our "God", we have then allowed that man to function AS GOD over us. We do that when we allow a parent, a pastor, a spouse, or an apologist to tell us what "God" said, or what "God" thinks, or how "God" feels, or how any of that should be applied to our lives. The same holds true for everything written in a bible. IF we take ANYTHING said in a Bible as the words of a "God" over us, then we accept a MAN's voice as the voice of our "God". That includes: * men who spoke, while claiming to be relaying what a "God" said (or did), * men who orally repeated (aka "Chinese Whispered") (subjectively understood) rumors they heard (about what other men have claimed a GOD said or did), * men who eventually wrote down their subjective understandings about whichever stories and sayings they heard, * men who hand-copied, * men who chose which books to canonize (and which ones not to), * men who translated, and * any man who interprets; even when you or I are the (hu)man who interprets. Christians all DO because they all MUST follow men; MEN who are TRUSTED to speak for "God". Otherwise, they could not call themselves a "Christian". It is trust in MEN which a.) makes possible the PREMISE and b.) provides the alleged data ... with which Christians claim they know anything (and also MUCH) ... about "God". Idolatry is unavoidably necessary for everyone who worships a "God". This fact does not upset nontheists. But we are correct to notice it. Whenever a Christian says "follow God rather than men", they reveal how oblivious they are to the reality of their own lived experience.

Now, since they are so oblivious to the reality of their own lived experience,
...
This means:
 They haven't met themselves very deeply.

Biblical religions actually prevent people from meeting themselves very truly and deeply. 
[Link to a powerful and relevant blog I wrote on this subject] 

This is what makes it easy to mistakenly think someone else *IS* a character in a theological narrative.

In turn, this blinds a theist's ability to really see another person's true character and journey. 

As a result,
those Theists can't meet others very deeply.

This is what causes them to be very unfair when they demonize anyone expressing a rival worldview (including rival theologies). 

That unfairness is further necessitated 
by Christian dogmas. 
Because the only way to justify the idea of a loving and just "God" who will permanently discard and violently destroy (or worse) people for the moral crime of wrong-think (about any issue a Christian regards as a morally essential doctrine)
...
is if
a.) they pretend they are QUALIFIEd to identify such wrongthink
and then
b.) also assume that such wrongthink 
is the manifestation of freely, willfully chosen unrighteous or "evil" moral character.  

When a Christian says "Do not follow men. Only follow God",
they are doing something very specific which they have been trained to do:

Gaslighting themselves.

Those who "catch fire" with gaslight will compulsively attempt to spread that onto others, without even realizing that's what they're doing.