All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 27, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
44:12
Why Jesus Matters! Bible Verses
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, so I think I've gone through the Bible verses that were submitted by listeners.
This one, John 3.16, is actually the most read Bible verse.
According to this website, it says, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Shall not perish but have eternal life.
And that is a very powerful statement.
Now, Of course, if you are a Christian, then this makes sense in the context of Christianity.
If you are not Christian, and I'm really talking specifically agnostic atheists here, the question is, what does this mean and why does it resonate?
Let's say you're an atheist.
So there are lots of people who claim to be prophets, who claim to be messiahs and so on throughout history.
Why does the story of Christ and Christianity, why is it so powerful?
Well, I think there is something very elemental and essential about human consciousness with regards to this, right?
And what is powerful and elemental about all of this kind of stuff is the question of philosophy and mortality.
The divine, the universal, the abstract, the platonic, and the flesh, the matter, the skin, the blood, the bone.
There's a woman on Twitter who, I think many years ago, said, my three-year-old just said, everything dies, people die, blah, blah, blah, even wolves die, but not books.
Books don't die because words are forever, right?
And she said, my three-year-old son, who's much smarter than I am, and somebody wrote back and said, oh, F off.
I think her name was Rebecca.
Oh, F off, Rebecca.
He did not say that.
And of course, I accept that.
It's most likely.
If I had to guess, that he did not.
His son, her son did not, in fact, say that.
But nonetheless, words don't die, right?
Nonetheless, words don't die.
And that's an important thing.
Concepts, ideas don't die.
You know, Aristotle, long in the grave, you know, thousands of years in the grave, yet, nonetheless, the laws of logic that he identified are retained and taught and understood, and so on, right?
So, one of the things that is so powerful about the personhood of Jesus is he is, I think I made this mistake before, half man, half God.
No, he's all man, all God.
All mortal, all divine, all flesh, all eternal.
That he is the union of the eternal and the flesh.
Now, of course, when we're talking about the universal and the flesh, there's two ways.
In which this can be interpreted as being immortal.
So, the first, of course, is the issue of genetics, right?
The DNA, right?
That we pass our DNA on, our DNA is recreated in another human being, my daughter is half my genetics and half my wife's genetics and so on, so the DNA is eternal.
And at the most elemental level in the building blocks of humanity, That is the case.
That we live forever in terms of we transmit our genetics to the next generation.
However, that's not enough.
Because we share that with all reproducing creatures, right?
We share that with all reproducing.
So, the fact that our DNA lives forever is not the answer as to how we are immortal.
So, if you think of Pascal's book Pensées or Thoughts, These are thoughts that he scribbled down.
Of course, Nietzsche would go for these endless walks and write down his thoughts upon returning, and Nietzsche's thoughts are eternal.
They reproduce themselves in our minds.
They're written down.
Of course, they're translated, and you can't perfectly mirror any thought in text, because we don't generally think in aphorisms or syllogisms.
We think, we have instincts, and then we try to transcribe these thoughts, instincts, insights, and so on.
Into as close an approximation of a language representation as possible, which is, you know, obviously it's the best that we have.
It's the best thing that we have.
My thoughts are being translated on the fly into this language.
Is it perfect?
No.
But perfect is a standard, right?
That cannot be transmitted.
There's no way that I can get my thoughts into your mind directly.
You cannot experience me.
Even if I were able to transmit my thoughts in some sort of real-time manner, you wouldn't have all of my personal history.
So, there is no way to get my thoughts into your mind, but I can get thought products into your mind, thought products being language.
And in fact, that's generally better.
It's well known that if you have a difficult problem, writing it out and writing it down is usually the best way to organize your thoughts about it.
So, the transmission of my thoughts.
Would not be as valuable as me codifying my thoughts into objective universal language in order to communicate my thoughts because the thoughts are then codified in a particular way that makes sense.
Like, is it better for me to write a novel or is it better for you to have a direct experience of one of my dreams?
Well, it's better for me to write a novel because that's something that can be transmitted and you experiencing one of my dreams would not mean that much to you because my dreams would be specific to my...
Life, my consciousness, my choices, my opportunities, and so on.
So, how do we, as mortals, become immortal, right?
Because that is the story of what is being said in John, right?
That God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son, so that who believes in Jesus shall not die but live forever.
So, again, if you're agnostic, you think that you die with yourself, and you recognize that if you write something down, that your thoughts will live on after you.
And it has to be not DNA, because that is not singular to human beings, and in religion, certainly in Christianity, only human beings have a soul.
Only human beings have a soul.
So, what is meant by a soul must be something specific to humanity as compared to the animals, and...
The only thing that is specific to humanity rather than the animals is not life.
Of course, we share that.
It's not reproduction.
We share that.
It is not a heart or a brain.
We share all of that.
It is not language because we share language with other creatures.
It is concepts.
The abstracting of universal characteristics and principles and transmitting those.
Now, the transmission of concepts has perfection in it.
So the concept two and two makes four, when it is transmitted, say, from teacher to child, the concept that two and two make four is transmitted in perfection.
That's really, really important to understand.
The laws of logic, right, identity, either or, non-contradiction, the laws of logic, they are transmitted perfectly.
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.
That is a perfect transmission of the logical inference.
Now, of course, if you're talking about two coconuts and two coconuts make four coconuts, well, four coconuts is an approximation because they're slightly different sizes and shapes and number of hairs and thickness of the flesh and liquid volume of the milk, all slightly different.
So, in material terms, there's imperfection in what the numbers manifest, but in the concept, two and two make four, You transmit that to someone else and they understand it, then 2 and 2 makes 4 is a perfect transmission.
UPP is a perfect transmission, right?
The argument that theft is universally preferable behavior is logically impossible and empirically impossible.
When you get that concept, UPP has been perfectly transmitted to your mind.
There is not a degradation of quality.
So, if you think of a WAV file to, say, a 16-bit MP3, well, a WAV file to 16-bit MP3 is a degradation in quality.
Copying the 16-bit MP3 from one place to another is not a degradation in quality.
And so, most language involves a degradation in quality.
There are some language concepts that unite and transmit without a degradation in quality.
Syllogisms, logic, mathematics, and so on, right?
They transmit with no degradation in quality.
If you're telling someone what you love about a particular sunset, there's going to be a degradation in quality because they can't experience your experience of the sunset directly.
A photograph has some degradation in quality, but Our concepts, mathematic abstractions, can be transmitted, but no degradation in quality.
Two and two makes four.
When you get that, that's a perfect pristine copy-paste of the original source with no recompiling, no degradation, or anything like that.
So, when it says we live forever, we must be talking about universal concepts.
Even in a novel, the dialogue that is written down, everyone's going to have a different image from the source material, right?
A tall man with a thick mustache walks into a room on a cold, windy day.
Everyone's going to have a slightly different impression of that, right?
Mine is of that actor who retired, who was in Gangs of New York.
But everyone's going to have a slightly different impression.
However, the source language is transmitted pristinely in that it is a tall man with a mustache walking into a room on a cold, windy day.
The source text is transmitted.
In other words, the language doesn't change from one person to another, but the images that they evoke do change from one person to another.
So when we're talking about immortality that is specific only to human beings, well, your DNA gets diluted over time, right?
I have half my fathers, but a quarter my grandfathers, an eighth my great-grandfathers, and so on.
So your DNA gets degraded over time.
Your flesh obviously dies and decomposes.
But the only thing that you can generate that lives forever is the most abstract concepts that can be communicated.
And if you hook into a concept and communicate it, you have achieved immortality in the transmission of perfect concepts with no degradation.
E equals MC squared does not degrade in the transmission of the concept.
Right?
E equals mc squared does not degrade in the transmission of the concept.
Gases expand when heated.
Now, if you measure each individual gas and how much you heat and imprecision in the measuring, okay, I get the empirical stuff, but the concept is copy-pasted from mind to mind with no degradation in quality, no dilution, no falling away, no falling apart.
It is a perfect reproduction in the mind of another.
To transmit the most abstract concepts possible.
And this is, you know, where Plato talks about forms, the forms, like the abstract concepts exist in a realm of their own and are eternal.
Well, the realm that the abstract concepts exist is in the mind and they are eternal because they're passed from person to person with no degradation in quality.
They are eternal.
Thou shalt not steal as a concept is transmitted.
As a commandment, it's transmitted from person to person.
Now, again, you can say, well, what technically is stealing?
If you're stealing back, how much time do you have before you have to accept it's the other person's property?
And so I get all of that.
Like, the application is subject to empirical degradation.
But thou shalt not steal.
The words and the language are transmitted in perfection.
In other words, once you accept the definition of stealing, thou shalt not do it is clearly banned by the commandment.
So, if we look at God as the aggregation of perfect concepts that can be copy-pasted from mind to mind with no degradation in quality, then that is eternal.
It is immortal.
And, of course, God created the universe, which is to say that the universal laws had to be present in the universe Before matter manifested, otherwise matter would never self-organize into a conceptual mind like human beings.
If we didn't have stable properties of matter and energy, there would never be enough stability for life to form and evolve over billions of years into the human mind.
So concepts, in a sense, abstractions, universals, principles, not the identification of them, but the manifestation of them.
There was gravity before we had the concept of gravity.
There was gravity before there was life.
So the principles, the concepts, exist in the universe prior to them manifesting as identified patterns in the mind of man.
So when the argument is or the statement is God so loved the world that he sent his one and only Son into the world to be sacrificed so that all who believed in him would not die but live forever, what he's saying is For the atheists and the agnostics, right?
Just so you understand, why is this so powerful?
Because you have to explain that, right?
Why is this so powerful?
Because if you translate this into secular terms, you're saying all who partake in universal virtues, values, and principles, who identify, hopefully create, but certainly transmit those, are participating in eternity, and the contents of their mind cannot die.
The contents of their mind cannot die.
UPB, for instance, or my identification of free will as our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, or my argument that love is our involuntary response to virtue if we're virtuous, these arguments live on after I die and can be perfectly transmitted into another person's mind.
In other words, The flesh that creates the principles is now immortal.
In other words, if you look at Jesus as the union of man and God, or the union of flesh and eternal concepts that could be copy-pasted flawlessly into another's mind, then you're saying, or I'm saying, or this, I think John is saying, sorry, that's a bit of a whirlwind, but John is saying, in secular terms, Your mind, when united with universal principles, will never die.
Einstein lives on forever.
Newton's principles live on forever.
Kepler's identifications of the sun-centered solar system lives on forever.
All of these things are eternal.
His mind, which is mortal, has now united with eternity, and therefore the contents of his mind cannot die.
His mind is all flesh, And all immortal.
And the soul is our capacity to create, identify, and transmit universal values and virtues and principles.
Therefore, the eternal is created by the mortal.
And, of course, the shadow cast by true virtues, I should say, the light cast by true virtues burns forever.
And the shadows cast by pure evil or corruption also last forever, which is why those of us who participate in the immortal, those of us who participate in universal virtues and values, are either bringing light to the world, which means our minds create and live in heaven forever, or at least our descendants live in heaven if we get it right, or they live in hell if we get it wrong.
So this is the North Korea-South Korea.
Dichotomy, or the East-West Germany dichotomy, right?
Which is that if we get things right morally, we live forever in heaven, which is to say that human beings live in a relative paradise, whereas if we get things wrong, we live forever in hell, which means the future of humanity is grim, black, dark, corrupt, and immoral in its foundations.
If you get things right, you get the free market and a stateless society.
If you get things wrong, you get tyranny and the mass slaughter of the innocents.
So, when the story is that Jesus was all God, all man, right?
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one.
Well, a father teaches his son eternal concepts that live forever.
That is, the Father, the Son, And the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the transmission of universal ideas, arguments, values, and concepts that go from Father to Son.
The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
Hopefully the values and virtues.
We would not put, say, mathematics in the category of morality, although the discipline of mathematics could well serve the discipline of objective and universal morals, right?
So that's really important.
And in general, it is fathers who teach their children morality, which is why when you want to corrupt the morals of a society, the first thing you have to do is get the fathers out of the home.
Mothers teach sympathy and empathy, which is important.
And mothers shield babies and toddlers from the consequences of their own bad decisions, but fathers are required to let bad decisions accrue to reinforce the values and virtues of good decisions and Fathers generally teach abstract moral standards, which is why when women take over the church, it becomes a sympathy support fest rather than a moral enforcement paradigm.
So the Holy Spirit are the universal morals handed from Father to Son.
That is why the formulation is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now, of course, the fact that Jesus was tortured, mutilated, and crucified, Murdered in the most corrupt and tortuous fashion really possible is when you universalize virtues and values, you will be attacked by those who are using virtues and values to corrupt others.
Right?
So there is a basic thing which we can see happening all the time in the right and the left, right?
So when a bunch of soldiers And other military members, when a bunch of soldiers are kicked out of the army because of COVID mandates, COVID vaccine mandates, the left shows no sympathy and says, well, they could just get a job doing something else.
And this is, you know, this is the old standard about the left, that if they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Or when there are a bunch of people who are in manufacturing and a bunch of manufacturing plants close down, the left, who doesn't like manufacturing workers because they tend to be Republican and they tend to be in sort of flyover, rust belt Republican states, so when people that are generally on the right lose their jobs, the left says, well, learn to code.
When a bunch of reporters lose their jobs and people tweet that those reporters can learn to code, the reporters report or flag this as abuse.
So when the left-wing reporters say to those they don't like who vote Republican, just learn to code if you lose your job, that's considered to be wise and pragmatic advice on what to do in times of economic uncertainty.
But when reporters lose their jobs and other people tweet at them to learn to code, they report it as targeted harassment and bullying.
You can see this, of course, with Doge, right?
So when people that the reporters or those on the left don't like, when they lose their jobs, it's fine, they'll figure it out, it's no big deal, those jobs are probably unjust and corrupt anyway, and so on, right?
However, when people that the reporters or those on the left like and Well, then, those people getting fired is deep, disastrous, horrifying, and tragic.
It's fine, in fact, probably good, when people the left don't like looser jobs.
It's horrifying, tragic, and you must show crying, sad people who can't meet their mortgage and who can't feed their children.
You must show those endlessly when people the left like or need or rely on when they lose their jobs.
So again, this is the use of morality and sympathy in a truly corrupt and hideous fashion.
Because human beings, since we are foundationally conceptual entities, we have no choice but to use morality in our arguments.
Right?
We have no choice.
I mean, this is why, you know, the communists, right?
The communists should empathize with the Rust Belt workers who are losing their jobs because they are proletariat.
They are the working class.
But they don't.
They mock and laugh at them and instead triumph those in the corrupt state who are passing policies that throw the proletariat out of work.
So, I mean, this is what I said when I was debating these two communists.
Who started off with the usual slanders and insults against me.
And I said, like, you're the worst freaking communist ever.
Because I am a working class guy who worked himself up to run a successful podcast.
And instead, they're siding with the multinational corporations who deplatformed me for telling the truth.
Right?
So they're siding with multinational corporations against a working class proletariat guy.
Right?
Or when I debated Varshan, he said the workers should own the means of production.
And I asked him if he hired people for his show, and he said yes, and I said, well, you should give them the means of production.
And he's like, I'm not going to do that.
So, anyway.
So, human beings have no choice but to use morality.
We either use morality to promote virtue, universality, and integrity, or we use morality in order to corrupt and grab and pillage and attack and so on.
We use it to spread honor.
We woo style or we use it to spread corruption and manipulation and we use it as a tool of power and subjugation.
But we have no choice to not use morality.
I mean, this is what's so funny about the people who argue against UPB. Like, we have no choice to not use morality.
Morality is going to show up in just about every argument for any kind of social good, obviously, right?
There's a morality, right?
All the people who said, well, human beings need access.
To healthcare.
Access to healthcare is a human right and then COVID comes along and people lose healthcare for a year or two and nobody cares.
Nobody complains.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
It's fine.
They'll be fine.
Right?
So, you either have integrity or hypocrisy.
You either have moral honor or you have moral corruption.
Everybody uses morality.
Which is why everyone goes to heaven or everyone goes to hell.
And the future is built upon the moral Integrity or corruption of the present, which is the story of the good and evil that you do in this life, leads you to heaven or to hell, which is an eternity, which is the moral decisions that you make in the present lead to heaven or hell in the future for an eternity, right?
That is the reality that we live in, which is why, you know, this is the cliche of what we do echoes in eternity.
I mean, what we reason, what we focus on, what we justify, what we condemn.
Like, you know, I was attacked for saying that people don't have to spend time with abusers, particularly, it doesn't matter if the abusers are parents, you don't have to spend your time appeasing abusers.
And people were like, oh my God, you're attacking family integrity.
And I got this with the against me argument, right?
That you at least have to acknowledge that people who want the state to attack you for your own free will decisions, that they are cheering on the initiation of the use of force against you and you, you know, potentially getting locked up into prisons where you might get raped, right?
That you at least have to acknowledge that people are cheering on the use of violence against you just for disagreeing with them and wanting a free will environment.
Let's say helping the poor, right?
Like if you're not for the welfare state and you want private charity to help the poor and people say, well, I am for the welfare state.
They're saying, well, if you don't volunteer, sorry, if you don't fund the welfare state with a gun to your head, Then you should be thrown in prison.
That's monstrous.
It's completely corrupt.
And a lot of people don't really see it, but the best way to get them to see it is to say, well, if you want me thrown in prison and possibly raped because I disagree with you, that's immoral, and you need to not do that.
And I said, either drop your libertarianism, or how can you have relationships with people who want you incarcerated and potentially raped just for disagreeing with them?
Like, that's monstrous, right?
And people are like, oh my god!
Family integrity is everything, and you can't ever possibly set family members against each other.
That's the worst thing ever, and all of that, right?
Anything which threatens and harms family.
And then, you know, COVID comes along, and families are smashed to bits over vaccine propaganda and COVID propaganda.
Like, families were splintered, sometimes irrevocably, because the unvaccinated were the new lepers, and they were unclean, and you can't have them over, and so on, and people died.
Alone.
And people could only touch glass that they were touching.
And nobody cared.
It wasn't like, wait a minute, this is harming family integrity.
This is setting family members against each other, right?
And nobody cared, right?
So it was all nonsense and lies and manipulations when I was talking about living with integrity in all your relationships, including your family of origin relationships.
People, they don't care.
It's not like a real thing.
At all.
At all.
Like not even a tiny bit.
Not even the tiniest of tiny bits.
So those who seek power over you are, you know, always continually trying to convince you that it is for the greater good, and that if you don't surrender your power to them, that you don't care about whatever mission they're claiming to solve when you surrender power to them.
If you don't support mass government surveillance, then clearly you're on the side of the terrorists.
And if you don't support coercive government education, then clearly you're on the side of keeping children ignorant and uneducated.
And clearly, if you don't like the government running healthcare, then clearly you want sick people to die in the streets.
So that's just using morality, or false morality, as a tool to control you.
Right.
If you would protect your property with force, then clearly you care more about property than human life, right?
And therefore, you're a cold-hearted person, and that's bad, and you shouldn't do that, and you're wrong, and all this kind of stuff, right?
It's the use of abstract morals and, in general, false dichotomies, right?
So, when I say government-run healthcare is immoral and also counterproductive, as we can kind of see, If the provision of government healthcare is immoral, then rather than say, in what way is it immoral, people say, well, you must hate the sick and want them to die, right?
I mean, that's just manipulative, false dichotomy.
You can see this, I remember, was it some comment from many years ago when I was on Joe Rogan, and people are like, mask comes, the mask comes off, you know, like I, and you can see this, this NPC mask, right?
There's a seething guy, and then there's a pleasant sort of mask.
And sort of the mask that is seeking people's hidden motives, right?
Well, I mean, why would you want to deny healthcare to the poor?
You must secretly hate the poor and want them to die.
You must be like, this sort of divining of this imaginary set of malevolent motives, right?
That I, I'm not going to deal with your argument.
I'm instead going to imagine Your malevolent motives and talk about those.
Well, I think the welfare state is destructive and immoral.
Well, you must just want the poor to die and starve in the streets, right?
Single motherhood is bad for children.
Oh, you must hate single mothers and so on, right?
The sort of the who hurt you nonsense that is just a way of avoiding any kind of rational analysis of any sort of particular proposal or the idea that I should be banished from public life because I talked about, say, IQ or other things that people found offensive or upsetting, that I should be banished from public life.
However, if you look at a lot of the top intellectuals cited in the field, their lives were full of the most malevolent and highly documented corruption that you could possibly conceive of.
It doesn't matter.
So, the pretense of morality as a mask for the exercise of brute control and coercion, that is...
The devil, right?
That's hell, right?
And that makes you far worse than an animal because an animal will simply be enraged or hungry or something and therefore will do you harm, but the animal will not give you a moral lecture when it bites your leg.
The animal doesn't trap you in false dichotomies and manipulate people and try to destroy your reputation.
The animal might just attack you if it's hungry or if it wants to defend its...
territory or something like that, but it won't do all that other nonsense, right?
So, if we look at God as the concepts, Jesus as the union of the flesh and the eternal concepts that can be transmitted perfectly, and the Holy Spirit, of course, is the act of transmitting those concepts,
and the concepts, particularly morality, leading to heaven or hell, Then I think we can understand why it is such a compelling and deeply fascinating and sort of spine-tinglingly connected story.
Because it is talking about our capacity to generate, identify, and transmit universal perfect concepts that give us immortality and lead to heaven or hell, and will often get us punished.
When you talk about true morality, In the face of those who are using false morality to control and dominate, they will attack you.
Of course.
I mean, you are a witness that's going to put them in jail, and we all know what organized crime tries to do, and often successfully does do to witnesses who are going to put them away.
Well, they whack them, right?
They snitches get stitches and wind up in ditches, right?
That's how they do things, right?
And this is one of the weaknesses, I think, that Christians have.
It's since Christian morals are universal, one of the issues that they have is that they fail to recognize how tribal almost all other belief systems are.
That in most of the other belief systems in the world, you only owe morals to those in your tribe.
You do not owe morals to those outside your tribe.
And because Christians are like, well, I owe morality, I got to tell the truth to everyone no matter what, they think that other people or other groups or other organizations, other belief systems, Have the same thing, right?
I mean, communists, it's like, whatever furthers the cause of the revolution, right?
Everything is for the revolution.
Whatever advances the cause of the revolution is totally fine.
You don't have to tell the truth.
You can even disavow communism if you think it will help further the cause of communism and the revolution.
You don't owe anyone the truth.
The only thing that you owe is to bring about a violent revolution to replace the free market, right?
So, and you can see this with other Belief systems, it's perfectly fine to lie, as long as it advances the cause of your belief system and so on.
So, a Christian, dare I say, some Christian naivete, and this is the big lie, the big lie.
So, some Christian naivete is like, well, I can't imagine myself doing that.
Let's say it comes out, and there's evidence that's interesting, but let's say it comes out that vaccines are the primary cause or a significant cause of autism.
And according to, I think it was RFK, says that this was in the 80s, that they were beginning to figure this out, and there were these meetings to sort of cover it up, and this, that, and the other, right?
And people recorded it, and he published an article in the Rolling Stone about this, which I have yet to read, but he was talking about this.
So there does seem to be some evidence, and let's say that it turns out that this is the case, that after a certain amount of pretty rigorous testing, the association is very strong.
Well, It's incomprehensible to most people that you would allow or you would profit from injecting children with stuff that raises the risk of becoming autistic.
Like, it would be, for most people, and certainly I think for most Christians, that's just incomprehensible.
Like, you would feel awful if you harmed even one child, right?
You would just feel awful.
And so it's kind of incomprehensible that this could happen, right?
Or, you know, with the sort of COVID vaccine, you know, some of the arguments about, well, they needed emergency use authorization, so they had to not have ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or other things that, you know, may have helped.
They couldn't have any alternative treatments because if there were alternative treatments, they couldn't get the emergency use authorization.
And so, you know, whatever.
Malevolent or greedy impulses had them do that because, you know, tens of billions of dollars changed hands over this.
And so the idea that you would, you know, inject a lot of people with stuff that, you know, was a little dicey and some of the, you know, 700 days plus of spike protein production still going on in people's systems, some people's systems who've been vaccinated against COVID. The idea that you would lie about that,
the idea that you would It's incomprehensible to most people, right?
It's incomprehensible to most people.
You know, most people, you know, if your kid grabs something on the stove and gets a little burn on his finger, they're like, oh, God, that's terrible.
That's horrifying.
That's appalling.
I've got to be careful about that.
I've got to make sure the pot handles are all turned away.
I've got to childproof my home.
They just...
Very, very keen, if not downright desperate, to keep people safe, to do the right thing.
But, you know, there are...
I mean, this Dr. Karen Mitchell on X is very interesting.
She's like, I don't know, 10 to 20% of the population are sort of some of this really cold-hearted and steely-eyed people.
And I haven't read all of her research, of course, but it's an interesting thesis.
Lines up with some of my experience, which of course doesn't mean that it's true.
I'm just saying that there's sort of personal anecdotal stuff that supports it.
But if you look at sort of the chronic health issues that are going on in a lot of the West, but in particular in America, and you say, well, the major pharmaceutical companies or other companies make a lot of money when people are chronically ill, and of course it's paid for largely by the government, so it's not like there's a cost reduction thing that's going on.
So people make a lot of money when People are chronically ill, and therefore, they don't have an incentive to prevent this illness from accruing, or this, I'm unhappy, give me SSRIs or whatever, even though there doesn't seem to be much of a biological basis, and they certainly can't find much of an association, if any, between serotonin and, say, depression or whatever.
And so the idea that people would be like, well, we make money, and I guess we can convince ourselves we're helping people, or You know, we're going to suppress data about any dangers from vaccines.
It's incomprehensible, yet it seems to happen quite a bit.
And this is just war, right?
Like, I mean, the war in Ukraine, there's some pretty good arguments that the war in Ukraine could have been prevented through a variety of measures, and yet people pushed it forward, right?
So, there are, it seems like, some serious, genuine, There's devils in the world who use morals in order to burn the world down for profit.
Power, I guess sadistic enjoyment, and profit.
And that is something that would be dangerous enough in a free society, although I think it would be rare.
Not non-existent, because I think some of this stuff is genetic, but it would be rare.
But when you give people the power of the state and money printing and...
Government indoctrination and education, quote, education, that kind of stuff, right?
When you do all of that, then the abuses become so extreme that they're very hard to believe.
It's very hard for a lot of people, and I think particularly for Christians to believe that there are pretty significant numbers of people in society who are thrilled and happy or at least content to administer and cause enormous harm to others for profit and power.
That's hard.
But that is entirely within the realm of Christianity to accept.
But the difficulty that moral people have in truly comprehending and understanding the evils of corrupt souls and what they're capable of and what they will say to you without any doubt or hesitation, right?
I mean, I think it's Karen Mitchell, sorry, Dr. Mitchell.
Give her her nomenclature.
She said recently, it's a very interesting argument.
She says, there's no real thing such as borderline personality disorder.
Like, it's not really a thing that exists independent of the fact that what we call borderline personality disorder It's simply the effects of decades of physical, mental assault and torture from these dark triad personalities.
Like you're some kid and you've got two parents or one parent with these like really sadistic and malevolent personality traits and you're going to get tortured and abused for years and borderline personality disorder is just that.
That's a very interesting argument and of course I think most people in the mental health professional Circles or in mental health professions would say that borderline personality disorder people come from a history of severe abuse.
I think that they would accept that, but I think the idea that BPD is just, in a sense, kind of PTSD from years of torture from malevolent or sadistic personalities, particularly parents.
It could be priests, teachers, and so on.
It's a very powerful idea and argument.
But most people feel bad for even inadvertently harming someone else.
And it's really hard to comprehend the deep joy and pleasure that all too many people take in harming, exploiting, and subjugating others.
And, you know, sensitivity to harm is one of the features of a slave morality, right?
Slave morality is, well, I can't harm the master because if I harm the master or harm any of his property or harm any of his other slaves, it's going to be really bad.
So the slave morality is, Intense, you know, kind of quote empathy, but it is, can't harm others, right?
Okay.
The master morality and the slave serves his own interests with pathological altruism.
Don't harm others, don't harm the master, don't harm his other slaves, don't harm his property, don't harm his pets, right?
To be harmless serves the interests of the slave.
However, to inflict Harm serves the interests of the master, right?
So it's the master-slave morality.
And of course, I'm not saying that kindness means you're a slave.
I'm just saying that pathological altruism and pathological kindness, kindness to the excess of principles, is how slaves survived, but intense cruelty and not just acting upon, but enjoying, punishing, and sometimes torturing your slaves is how the master, right?
How the master survives and it serves his interests.
And of course, Masters and slaves were the typical configurations throughout human history.
So, for the slave to understand the master is very tough.
Now, the master understands the slave because the master has to harm and torture the slave and therefore he has to know where the soft spots are.
So, the master understands that the slave has, say, loyalty to his wife and children.
He understands that so that he can use harm to the wife and children as a way of controlling the slave.
But the slave has a very tough time comprehending the master.
And that is one of the great weaknesses, I think, in the modern world.
So, anyway, I hope this helps.
And this is, again, continuing these Bible verses because I think that that's really powerful stuff to talk about.
I feel like almost all parts of the electrical surges of my brain maxing out the circuitry when I do these.
So, hopefully, there's maybe touched by a bit of universal or divine inspiration that way as well.
But I really do thank you for your time.
If you find these kinds of conversations helpful, free-demand.com slash donate.
I would really, really appreciate your support.
It means the world to me and is very, very important for what I do.
FreeDomain.com slash donate.
Thank you, my friends.
Have a great afternoon.
▲
Export Selection