#zA's Heretical Theosophizing

[zenosanalytic]

When Christians Kill God

I was watching a Big Joel video essay on Nebula this morning(sorry, can't link it rn: he hasn't put it on youtube yet) about the God's Not Dead series of christian-nationalist movies, and it crystalized something for me:

When Nietzsche said "God is Dead"(and I have my Issues with Nietzsche this is not a "Nietzsche is Great" post), he didn't mean god had ltrl had a heart attack or something, nor did he mean ppl didn't BELIEVE in god anymore. He meant "God", as a concept, had lost the explanatory and organizational meaning he felt it had in the past: that "God" was no longer a transcendent and otherworldly point for social cohesion, which provided structure and meaning to society and life, and The Church no longer an institution everyone deferred to and interacted with by dint of its divine-connection, but rather that both had become subordinate to gross political power. He meant that God-as-concept was now a mere rhetorical means to achieve inescapably worldly, political ends(one could fairly argue if "God" had ever been anything BUT that).

There's a moment in one of the latest of these movies subtitled In God We Trust[1](we'll get back to this) that is VERY telling. The hero of the film, a conservative pastor running for congress, is debating a strawman liberal and the liberal says something like "Isn't do unto others the main message of Christianity? Isn't Love Thy Neighbor central to the teachings of Jesus?" to which the hero says "No." both times and then responds "central to the teachings of Jesus, IS Jesus." and follows it up with "the only reason the teachings of Jesus resonate is because he was the son of god" meaning that christianity isn't about following Joshua's teachings or example, but just baldly about worshiping him, as a deity and like:

First off Josh Says(Im going to have to quote the Gospel of John quite extensively here to make a point, so plz excuse that) pretty clearly

I am the way the truth and the life

That how he lived is The Life dedicated to god, and his example the WAY to god, and his life's teachings AND example the TRUTH of god, and reiterates it later when asked by Phillip to show them god by saying

have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still do not know me?

in other words 'WHAT HAVE I BEEN TEACHING YOU That you don't know god yet? Haven't you been paying attention to my words and actions?' and later

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works

in other words 'The Words of my Teachings are the Work of God. I. HAVE. BEEN. TEACHING YOU. GOD' and then, still, following from that

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, then believe because of the works themselves. Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

and later still

Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me

It Could-Not-Be-Fucking-Clearer: Joshua is saying DIRECTLY 'If you believe in me you will live by my example and my teachings, and if you do not live The Way and The Truth I have brought to you FROM GOD, then you DO.NOT. believe in me' His message could not be clearer.

The people who made God's Not Dead: In God We Trust made it's culminating moment a DIRECT RENUNCIATION of Joshua's teachings, and John 14 specifically, in favor of worshiping divinity in-and-of-itself. They reject his life, his teachings, his works --Everything the Gospels equate directly to Joshua and through him to God-- to merely worship a god for being a god, and in doing so mark themselves out as not christian at all. They DO NOT keep his words, and so they do not love him, and they are PROUD OF THIS!

So, No, God's Not Dead: In God We Trust(which you CLEARLY DONT DO, Actually): Christ is NOT "the central message of christianity", his WORDS are his BODY and those who KEEP them in their Hearts make themselves a HOME FOR GOD. When you reject his Words, you reject his Way, you reject his Life, you reject God, You. Reject. Christ.

I am no christian, but by the standards of the professed beliefs of the people who made this work, of the VERY TEXT they claim is their inspiration and truth, bowing down to divinity is NOT Enough. You HAVE to Walk the Way; you MUST Accept his Words.

But more to my point: What better proof that "God Is Dead", no longer a pillar to build your life around and bring ppl together by, now nothing more than a tool for unscrupulous power-seekers, than a gang of wealthy liars calling themselves ~Christians~ proudly celebrating their Rejection of "The Way The Truth The Life" in favor of scraping at divinity's feet, as a tawdry tactic to drum up votes for an election.

They Spit on their God and call it "Faith".

[1]That they'd name it this is particularly galling, given everything else, because of course that Wasn't The Original Motto of the US, E Pluribus Unum(Out of Many, One) is, but rather one adopted in 1956 after a long campaign of political christians campaigning for it. In other words: That "In God We Trust" is the official US motto is yet another example of God being reduced from something holy to a political football. ↩︎

[zenosanalytic]

Yes! And I'd actually go further, like:

The whole idea of applying redemption to morality is deeply fucked up. "Redemption" is a financial term, specifically it's a "Buying Back": you Redeem debts, tokens, money, title, property. These are inherently amoral commercial concepts having to do with Money and Commodities, and we should really stop conflating them with morality. The things you do, Cannot be undone. There is no "going back" and God, even if it existed, would not have the power to unmake the past, and would be too moral, too respectful of hurt and agency, to ever do something that invalidates them for one person to benefit another.

But YOU have the power to change. YOU have the power to be different. YOU have the power to look at what you did and say "That was Fucked Up, and I was WRONG, and when I Thought that it was an OK Thing to do I was WRONG, and I'm never going to do or think that ever again," and then LIVE That. You have the massive power to recognize a mistake, and Apologize, and Remake Yourself, whenever you choose.

People can choose to forgive you or not, that's the power THEY Have and you have NO power to force it from them, nor the right to demand it. You live with the consequences of what you've done, and you stop being the person who did it, but the choice of Forgiving or Not is THEIRS to make. And, not really on this topic but an important related one, THAT is what Grace actually is. Not divine, not of God, not even Moral, but fundamentally and inherently Mortal; Imperfect, Changing, an inextricable contradiction, a bond made of people acknowledging Hurt, one choosing to lay it down, and another choosing to let themselves be forgiven; something so small and so huge that it feels like Magic.

the concept and idea of “you can always start trying to be a better person” is extremely important to me both in media and irl and i continue to be deeply deeply disturbed by the trend on this site pushing that these ideas in media are bad writing or even morally reprehensible

because theyd rather someone stay terrible or just straight up die than become a better person 

from a compassionate point of view it’s deeply distressing and from a pragmatic point of view it’s outright frustrating

it’s fucked up. 

[zenosanalytic]

One of the theories about why religion is a Thing that I like the most is that humans are social creatures who sometimes have to deal with loneliness, or go AGAINST society cuz Principles and society sometimes doing disagreeable things, or deal with forces beyond their ability and comprehension, and the concept of some transcendent being --someone unhindered by physical limitations and ignorance with an Inside Track to The Incomprehensible-- having your back, is comforting. I like that idea! The "Imaginary Friend" Theory of religion, one could call it :p

But: that idea must be squared with one of the most successful religious traditions on the planet being premised on the idea that this being is your absentee Father, who spies on you constantly, and Hates you, and will damn you to eternal torment unless you do EXACTLY what his earthly underlings tell you to (:T (:T

(Thoughts I had in response to This Post)

[zenosanalytic]

Privacy and Morality

I had a Thought today: Someone cannot be Perfect and Omniscient at the same time.

Here's my thinking:

to be Perfect one must be Morally Perfect

It is Moral to respect the privacy of others, and amoral to disrespect and violate it

Omniscience requires one to know everything that everything does, says, and thinks; i.e., to VIOLATE the privacy of all things, all the time, forever and without restraint.

Therefore Omniscience and Moral Perfection are mutually exclusive; Therefore Omniscience and Perfection-in-general are mutually exclusive.

Now: One might argue KNOWING is not, in-itself, a "violation of privacy" so long as the omniscient individual keeps it to themselves; that privacy is only violated when the private Thing(whether word, act, deed, or thought) is made public against the private-actor's will.

But: That doesn't work, and it very obvsl doesn't work. Some examples:

If the USPS clearly opened and read your mail, but then put INTO It an assurance that they would not share it with anyone or use it against you in any way, you'd still feel violated by the act.

If they didn't even include such a note, but your mail was quite obvsl opened and re-sealed when you received it, you'd feel violated(and doubt the content's veracity).

The CIA and NSA's blanket collection of US communications data during the Bush II/Shrub administration(beyond being totally useless cuz it's just way too big a dataset to actl DO anything with or learn anything FROM) and likely beyond, was and is morally and legally wrong, -- a clear violation of the 4th Amendments guarantee of security in our "papers and effects" against searches and seizures that are 1)unreasonable, 2)lack a warrant, 3)unsupported by oaths as to the utility of the search 4)themselves unjustified by preliminary evidence affirming it will be fruitful to a particular investigation -- regardless of whether you ever had reason to believe your communications were ever surveilled and archived.

Your "Privacy", as immaterial and conceptual as it is, cannot be alienated from you without destroying it; cannot be accessed against your agency without UNDERMINING and DISRESPECTING that agency, and thus your existence.

So anyway that's what I was thinking u_u