Who Would Jesus Love? Nobody. And Here's Why ...

 @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

·

@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 God; whatever prestige (aka "glory") someone can provide to him. So then: "a.)"-reason *IS* The basis of: "b.)"-State of "love". "God loves (whoever) only ever because (whoever) has proven to be sufficiently useful as a utility for God's ego and ego-related ambitions. "All things for the glory (aka "glorification") of God" Wanting to SHARE in that "glory" is automatically ego-based. Because that's what "glory" is. As a lowly little sub-microscopic, bipedal ant in a Christian-fundamentalist-hypothetical-God's Ant-Farm, ... If I adopt "b.)" as my reason, then: I'm really just adopting "a.)" indirectly, because "a.)" is the reason for "b.)". In effect, I'd be vicariously choosing "a.)" via "b.)", while **enabling** & "partaking" in a Supreme NPD's framework of ultimately selfish and transactional meaning of "love". If someone says "I ascribe a positive value to other people's lives AND feel good about them and towards them (literally, the meaning of "love") because my DEITY does." ... That framing attempts to distract people away from thinking about why that DEITY ever feels that way about anyone. It also attempts to distract people away from noticing that (per the official lore) "He" really does not feel that way about everyone. In biblical lore, it's rare for that deity to ascribe significant positive value, or to generally 'feel good about' anyone. "He" may desire for everyone to avoid death (or worse) forever. "He" may desire for everyone to end up in HEAVEN forever. He may "love the world", when he thinks ABOUT the people of our world. But he also calls upon his people to HATE that very same world. So then those two statements are obviously context-dependent. In context, he loves whatever we can do for him. Those who make him feel seen and valued are stroking his ego. Those who do NOT make him feel those ways will still end up propping up his ego, after he FORCES "every knee to bow". -And then again, when those little ants make the big kid with a magnifying glass feel powerful. #BurnBabyBurn We can see that theme expressed repeatedly throughout biblical lore. The basis of who makes it into one 'outcome' vs the other ... is determined by how useful each person has proven to be as a utility for HIS Ego and Ego-driven ambitions. Anyone who aligns with that deity's reasons is losing sight of their own humanity. When a human's REASON for seeing someone else's value is because "GOD" sees that value, ... They are automatically adopting that "God's" reasons. This is why it matters (in biblical cultures) to say we get our value from RESEMBLING GOD. Bible-GOD shares a conceptual root with the legend of "Narcissus".

Those are two different sets of lore. But these were inevitable, just as vampire lore was inevitable. Those fables are ways of recognizing (and trying to make sense of) the existence of clinical Narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths in our world. The problem is: Bible writers were all just: MEN with Major Personality Disorders writing "HOW TO" guides ... for getting away with it. The Greek fable of "Narcissus" is where Narcissistic Personality Disorder gets its name from. Identically to Narcissus (but with much worse traits piled on top), Bible-God can only feel very good about anything that reflects his own beauty back to him. Thus, per Christian biblical lore, everyone entering Heaven is made anew in his likeness. That way, he can stare adoringly at every living reflection of his own glory; for the rest of eternity. This is why he needs to have each sycophant completely "die to their former selves". To be "a new creature" means you are being REPLACED. But His EGO won't feel satisfied enough with that, unless the person who is ending their existence is doing so willingly, for the "glory of God". That way, each "new creation" will be a forever-reminder FOR GOD ... about how GREAT "God" is. Because the deleted soul specifically self-deleted as a tearfully joyous testimony to that deity's greatness. It would surely be more fulfilling for HIM than it used to be... before he made a human ant-farm, and even before he made angels, ... when the only "people" ever telling and showing him how great HE is ... was internally himself. The "God" character in Christian lore

has an external "locus of identity". Thus, he needs to get most of his validation of worth from someone outside of himself. Meanwhile, here in the *real world*, the concepts of compassion, altruism, and humans having innate value ... look nothing like what Bibles call "love". Healthy relationships look nothing like the relationship any Bible-story character had with "God" or other humans.

"Biblical" ways of thinking are antithetical to human health, justice, and compassion.

At the end of his lecture, around the 1:19:30 mark, Sapolsky issues a disclaimer about what he’s “not saying”:

“I’m not saying ‘you gotta be crazy to be religious.’ That would be nonsense. Nor am I saying, even, that most people who are, are psychiatrically suspect.”

What he is saying, he continues, is that “the same exact traits which in a secular context are life-destroying” and “separate you from the community” are, “at the core of what is protected, what is sanctioned, what is rewarded, what is valued in religious settings.”"

The VAST majority of white evangelicals voted for Trump every time he ran for President.

Those are the same evil nutters who are still supporting him right now; as Trump+Elon+GOP dismantle the entire infrastructure of our Modern Day Rome.

Meanwhile, they're attempting to

kill millions of innocent adults and children across the world.

They are also attempting to destroy millions of vulnerable Americans.

Those Christians are the same evil nutters who intentionally made sure COVID killed a lot more people than it would have,

as a form of social protest.

And why?

Because they enthusiastically placed their literal addiction to religion

+ their magical thinking + their grand sense of superior tribal entitlement,

over the value of every life they decided to bioweaponize themselves against.

Oh, and the people who put the FUN in FUNdamentalism won't be satisfied until they've finished the job.

So you can all stop gaslighting about being beacons of virtue in a dark world.

As a religious movement, You ARE the dark. As individuals,

you have lost sight of your true spark within.

It makes you dangerous. It made the literary figure "Jesus" dangerous too. It's why he did NOT see the value in ANY human's life EXCEPT for whichever humans would be useful to his and his Father's pursuit of personal glory.

I SEE VALUE in other humans' lives. Why? Because I know there is BEAUTY within them (no matter who can see it) which is NOT dependent on anyone else's.
It's also because I correctly see the best parts of myself within them;
just as I correctly see the best parts of them within me. 

I can also see that beauty within the people who (within the chaos of their unhealed minds) devalue me the most. 

I know their innate and autonomous value 
because I know mine.

I don't give a shit if any of them might LOOK LIKE A GOD.
I don't give a shit if any of them look like me either. I don't give a shit if any GOD might have its own FEELINGS about those people.
I don't give a shit how useful those people might be to anyone's interests or "Grand Plans".