Christianity as Fluid Adaptability not Fixed Dogmatism: Framing The Pneumatic Logos

 

At this point in the year 2025, the most practical solution to my thinking brain and my desire for a steady spirituality is a simple belief in an evolving Pneumatic Logos or Fluid Word, meaning some kind of divine material energy transforming and changing form through various man-made religious mythologies. In other words, no religious story or symbolism is literally true but it can nevertheless be thought of as a Divine Energy flowing through individuals, ethnicities and cultures, producing ethical algorithms that produces the Good. 

So that the pneuma as a universal Logos is like the Force in Star Wars and has been described by Nietzche's favorite philosopher Heraclitus, as well as the Stoics and Philo, the Johannine community, the Mormon Pratt Brothers, and Jordan Peterson. 

As Bruce Lee said, “become water my friend,” which can be rephrased as “become pneuma, i.e. become fluid and adaptable.” Become adaptive to the changing forms of religion and dogmas, policies, rituals and Creeds. All of which is transitory formations limited by time and space and culture and language and ethnicity and other liabilities of mankind; while the Logos is eternal Wisdom or what I call the Divine Operating Dimension (G.O.D.), like the Win-Win Nash Equilibrium for example.

 Another way to think of this Fluid Force is as transformium from the Transformers movies. This is actually a good analogy because according to biblical scholars the word spirit in the New Testament, meaning pneuma, is based in Stoic physics as an actual physical substance.  

From this point of view, the original God in the Heavenly Realm is not a particular ethnic or cultural deity, but the pneuma emanating from the Divine Power(s) or Higher Intelligence(s), became understood through the various cultural and ethnic peoples of the earth. For the Indo-Europeans, the pneuma was manifested through the mythos of the sky God and the radiant Sun, and for the Hebrews it manifest as Yahweh (Man of War), and then for Greek philosophers like Heraclitus it was the mysterious energy fueling the ongoing transformation of natural forms cycling into new forms. Even Charles Darwin spoke poetically of an original "pneumatic breath" being breathed into the first forms that gave rise to multiple evolved forms. 

So I see a consistent connection between all of these ideas and philosophies manifest in various ethnic and cultural forms, pointing to an original transformium-like, Star Wars Force-like, field of energy that is neither created nor destroyed but simply changes forms. This thus provides a secure unchanging basis for a personal spirituality, in that it's based in science and comparative religion, pointing to a synthesis of ideas based in something undeniably real.

What is a Petersonian Christian?

 

First off, Jordan Peterson is not a Fundamentalist Christianity. He sees Christianity as a set of symbols and stories that can guide one towards inner transformation and greater societal health and prosperity. Similar to how Marcus Borg uses the historical-metaphorical interpretive lens of reading the Bible, Peterson uses a Jungian lens to interpret the Bible. So Peterson does not get bogged down in the factuality of the events of the Bible as his focus is on their psychological meaning and how they can be used to integrate the psyche and motivate one in practical ways toward growing toward good character and a meaningful life.

I consider myself a Petersonian Christian. Of course I do not agree with everything Jordan Peterson has ever said, but most of what he says and does in the context of Christianity, I agree with. 

What I find interesting about Peterson's Bible Lecture Series that is free online, is that it reminds me of another psychologist named Dr. Paul Dobransky M.D. (author of the MindOS ebook) who also has tried to help develop young men into men of high character. The method Dr. Dobransky uses in his Mature Masculine Power 3.0 program is to implement the Greek Gods as archetypes. 

From my listening to both Dr. Dobransky and Dr. Peterson, both find in the archetypal symbolism of these mythologies, useful stories and symbols and avatars to talk about universal laws and principles for psychological change and transformation; that ignite the human imagination and inspire ethical change and can create a meaningful life.

In this sense, I fully support Peterson's core teachings and ideas about the Bible. He is approaching the Bible from a psychological and mythological point of view, similar to what Joseph Campbell did and Dr. Paul Dobransky did with Greek mythology. 

Since most Americans are more familiar with the Judeo-Christianity, then Greco-Roman mythology, is less practical to use for psychological purposes. It makes sense for Peterson to focus on those archetypal "maps of meaning." 

This can only be beneficial because as Joseph Campbell explained, dreams are private myths and myths are public dreams. So the Bible, if anything, is a humanistic document in many ways because it contains the symbolic dream language of our ancestors.

Many outspoken atheists who proselyte atheism as a better worldview do not like this because they think that Peterson is a walking advertisement for Christian Fundamentalism by simply finding value in the symbolic stories of the Bible. But in truth, Peterson's approach is actually very damaging to the Fundamentalist and dogmatic types if you pay close attention to what he's actually saying.

Part of the performance art, if you will, of Peterson -- in my opinion and part of his marketing genius -- is not excluding the large body of theologically conservative Christians who might see him as an ally. So while he does clearly distance himself from Fundamentalism and uses the word Fundamentalism in a critical manner on occasion, the vast majority of what he says about Christianity is favorable in a way that is pleasing to the ears of theologically conservative Christians. This of course annoys the conviction-atheist who is seeking to discredit any and all forms of Christianity. 

Peterson also makes a good point that the question about whether or not he believes in "God" is not the best kind of question. Peterson instead focuses on whether or not one acts out behaviors that convey they believe in God. He does not use this example, but in interviews Ted Bundy points out that he is an atheist which likely played a part in his ability to commit his heinous murders. When many atheist doctors have committed atrocities, there's no doubt that their belief that "the skies were empty" and there was no objective morality or consequences to their actions, this likely had a part in their cruel behavior; even if on an unconscious level. In other words, we cannot know what is operating on the unconscious level of a person, so that when people act out the Christian morality of for example kindness, generosity and compassion, could it be that even on an unconscious level they have some belief in God. Nietzsche himself, pointed out that the "shadow of God" is going to linger. So Peterson argues that most of us believe in God even if we question the existence of God, because we are acting out the moral framework of a belief in God. Peterson uses the psychological concept of the Logos as a kind of memeplex or package of ideas containing higher ordered meaning and ethics for the good of humanity.

Another reason I am a Petersonian Christian, is that despite my criticisms of Nietzsche's philosophy, there are parts of Nietzsche's philosophy that I think are correct: in particularly Nietzsche's focus on criticizing and condemning monastic forms of Christianity that deny the biological instincts. Peterson is excellent at bridging the Gap between moderate forms of Christianity and the healthy parts of Nietzsche's philosophy. In Peterson's book 12 Rules Life he basically presents a hybrid life philosophy that synthesizes Nietzschean philosophy and Jungian psychology. For example, his chapter on Stand Up Straight With Your Shoulders Back, is an appeal to our biological nature and how a man's degree of status, strength and competency, has a direct effect on those around him leading to greater health or degeneration. This is the kind of chapter that Nietzsche could have written or at least approved of. 

To get an idea of the parts of Petersonian Christianity I most agree with. Here are some comments from Jordan Peterson -- Biblical Series, Lecture 1: 

At the 1 hour and 25 minutes to the 1 hour and 33 minute mark, Peterson discusses his epistemology as pragmatic and he argues against Fundamentalism as a form of believing lies and argues for understanding the biblical stories as composed by dramatists not scientists.

At 1 hour 40 minutes, he describes the Logos as akin to Consciousness. 

At 1 hour 47 minutes he compares the idea of humans having souls as "sparks of the Divine" with intrinsic worth as such, versus the murderer character in the book Crime and Punishment. 

1 hour 52 minutes he talks about "God as Father" acts as a symbol, with whom we negotiate within an exchange system for future outcomes; which acts as a Cloud of Ideas that led to later concepts of sacrificing one thing in time to produce new creations out of chaos and into potentiality in a future stage of time.

Biblical Lecture Series 2: 

The first 15 minutes is on how God speaks Order out of Chaos and the Son as the Logos as the creative power of words to form ideas and actions; as in God as the Formless Potentiality of Existence, producing Form from the Chaos. With humans being made in the image of this Creative Power that creates order from chaos, so that we too have the potential to be co-creators with the Creator. 

At 20 minutes in he discusses Genesis 1:2 and argues that the text represents in psychological language our anthropological development as brave seekers into the Unknown Deep and exploring new territory and developing Form out of the bubbling Potentiality around us. 

In this section he argues that the superhero mythology is not just in religion, even Atheists will get wrapped up in the Star Wars movies.

At 28 minutes he humorously describes humans as "chimpanzees full of snakes" and so Trust is required for social stability. Archetypes represent "unchanging Transcendent stability over time"; and the archetypal stories represent an attempt to form a "Fenced Garden" as a protection from the snakes of the world.

At 38 minutes he discusses on Jung vs. Freud on religion. On Marx he says: "If religion was the opiate of the masses, then communism was the methamphetamine of the masses, I can tell you that."

At 47-52 minutes he argues against philosophical pessimism, the view that "human life has no cosmic significance," compared to the amazing development of Consciousness and the Power of Care.

At 56 minutes he argues against political Utopianism, seeking security and certainty as an addiction. And instead engaging the world and living within the process of transforming "the chaos of potential into habitable being." Just like in Genesis where God "transforms the chaos of potential into habitable being," humans as images of God, are meant to act that out.

At 1 hour to 1 hour and 18 minutes, he argues against the ideas of Mephistopheles in Faust by Goethe, that basically life is a cruel joke and a blood bath and "life feeds on life" and nothing matters, so just be selfish and materialistic; or resign yourself to Schopenhauerian philosophical pessimism and the rejection of Being itself. He also argues the case for the universal recognizing of Evil and the Transcendent Good. While arguing for being a Force for Good in the world.

At 1 hour and 19 minutes he points out that the biblical stories are the dreams out of which the humanity emerged.

1 hour 23 min. - 27 min.: in Genesis God brings chaos into being by his word and speech and calls it good and that is the fundamental judgment of reality as good. The Old Testament deity is arbitrary and you have to get in line or get zapped because that is how ancient people viewed reality. Peterson points out that Nietzsche admired the literary aspects of the Old Testament as better representing the arbitrary nature of reality. The Evil of the 20th century provides a contrast by revealing that Good exists by recognizing the Evil.

1 hr 29 min: Quote: "The idea that the divine is something that’s at least as complicated as a human being strikes me as something that’s actually quite reasonable. I know it’s a metaphor."

1 hr. 32 min: In response to simple-minded atheists who call Bible stories mere superstition, he says they deny the complex  emergence of wisdom embedded within the texts that led to the development of philosophy overtime.

1 hr. 36 min: Peterson shows a slide showing that scientists discovered that Michelangelo's Sistine chapel painting with God in a cloud extending his finger to touch Adam's finger is in the shape of a brain; Peterson associates this with the miracle of consciousness. While the painting made me think of God as a memeplex for the greater good. Which led me to recall a book I read where an atheist named Kevin meditated while visualizing a good fatherly God figure and his brain scan showed positive benefits to such meditative visualization.

Quote from 1 hr. 49 min:

There’s the archetypal embeddedness, and that would be the incarnation. That’s the perfect man who accepts his mortality and acts in a virtuous manner. It’s the archetypal story of every individual, as well. There’s a very strong strain in Christianity—I would say this is more pronounced in orthodox Christianity—that the proper path of life is to take the tradition and the spirit that's associated with consciousness and to act it out in your life, in your own personal life, in a manner that's analogous to the manner in which Christ acted it out in his life. What that means, in part, is the acceptance of the tragic preconditions of existence. That’s partly betrayal—by friends, by family, and by the state—and it’s partly punishment for sins that you did not commit, as well as the ones you did commit. What the notion is, is that your duty, let's say, and the way to set things right in the cosmos, is to accept that as a necessary precondition for being, and to act virtuously despite that. That's a very, very powerful idea, as far as I’m concerned

1 hr. 51 min: negative individuals have a kind of "gravitational field of sorts": a negative pull as if caught in a vortex as energy-vampires; and how they frame you into their victim mentality and unhappy narrative, bending reality to fit their pessimistic narrative. Christianity avoids that with its overall positive redemptive view of reality. The contrast is The Virtuous Individual who creates a spiral upwards in positive energy that echoes out into future generations.

2 hours in: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL:

Evil acts as proof of the Good and the difference between natural tragedies and malevolence; and how humans seem to be better able to handle natural catastrophes while it is the pungency of human malevolence that cuts us to our core. Adam and Eve being naked is symbolic of their vulnerability and it is then that they know good and evil. To summarize Peterson, it is the birth of their realization that they can be hurt and having a what I call Survival Instincts Network (S.I.N.); and with that awareness of their own vulnerability is Theory of Mind: meaning the ability to understand how others might be feeling in reference to ourself; and thus they were made aware that you can hurt others by understanding how you yourself are hurt and vulnerable and naked symbolically; hence knowing Good and Evil. 

Animals do not have this self-consciousness, and so it is then that good and evil enter the world in the story. 

Peterson then argues that God cannot be responsible for the human capacity for cruelty. For example medieval torturers would think up ways to torture others. And yes natural catastrophes are terrible enough, but the human spirit has the resolve to overcome most natural tragedies. What cuts us to our core and causes the most damage to our spirit is human malevolence. So it is humans who are responsible for evil malevolence.

2 hr. 16 min: You can't rescue people who don't want to be rescued. you can't make the person want to aim upwards which is required to make progress and to be helped. They have to recognize and admit they are on the wrong path. Trying to rescue the unwilling is like a lifeguard trying to rescue a person drowning who won't calm down and listen to the lifeguard; and so the lifeguard will get hurt and drown as well. If the person is unwilling to rise upward then the chances of them bringing you down as opposed to you raising them up is more likely. Finally, it could be counterproductive as the person just digs in their heels and resents you trying to help them.

The Art of Awareness and Letting Go to Let "God"

 * The following is a brief summary of the secular practice of Mindfulness, and Eastern wisdom as I understand it being combined with Christian Mysticism.

Be aware of your moment to moment conscious awareness of the timeless here and now and what theologian Paul Tilloch called the ground of Being.

Be more other-focused: living more aware of other's feelings and practicing compassion while improving the well-being of your fellow beings. By doing so you can let go and let God, for God is the energy that grows the Kin-dom (the Realm of Reciprocal Love), so that your generosity is likey to boomermang back to you. See:

The Power of Brim-Brim Thinking

Live in a state of radical uncertainty by realizing our universal inability to fathom the Ultimate beyond our limiting cognitive faculties and mammalian imagination and the dim lens of our perceptions. As the apostple Paul puts it to paraphrase him: we are all looking at reality as if looking a blurry mirror that distorts the true image of an underlying divine reality.

Letting go of...

- selfish attachments, needing to always feel right and prove other’s wrong, i.e. let go of focusing on always needing to be right rather than being more happy by acting happy.

- Avoid labeling others negatively, dogmatic/rigid ideologies, and tribal tendencies.

- Avoid craving the permanent afraid of the impermanent and the Trancendent.

- Work on not trying to control the complex interplay of cosmic laws and forces and the natural ebb and flow of the universe. Let go and let "God."

- resisting reality rather than accepting what "is."

Table of Links to Blog Posts

> Defining "Practical Christianity" & The Epistemology (Way of Knowing Truth) taught by Jesus

> Christianity as Fluid Adaptability not Fixed Dogmatism: Framing The Pneumatic Logos

> What is a Petersonian Christian? 

> From the Original Church (Ekklesia in Greek) as Close Knit Christian Friendship Group (like a Fraternity) acting like a Real Spiritual Family to the Development of Pious Fakers , Pulpiteering and Megachurch Charlantry

> The Practical Power of Utilizing the Bible's Literary "Energy" for Overcoming Nihilism and Achieving your Best Life

> You Get Sad: The Nihilistic-Atheist Path of Sadness, Unhappiness and Despair & The Happier Way (At Least for Me)

> By Your Example You Demonstrate True Discipleship, Not Reciting Dogma or Creed

> The Core of My "Belief" being Centered in The Spiritual Spark (or Pneuma) & The Underlying Dimensions of Goodness Manifest through Ethical Algorithms 

> The Real Meaning of the Word "Gospel"

> What Does It Really Mean to Follow Jesus? The Actual Ethical Way of Jesus and What it Means to Actually be a Christian

> What Did Jesus Most Talk About & Focus On? It Might Surprise You

> The Power of Brim-Brim Thinking

> The Case of Scripture Itself & Rejecting Literalism

 > Why the Bible being Mostly Allegory (including the Virgin Birth) does not Affect My Faith

> Gary Wills on What Paul Really Meant & The Early Christ Communities

> The Reverent Agnostic : A.J. Jacobs on, My year of living biblically

> The  Destructive Communication (i.e. Fiery Tongue) among many (not all) Nihilistic Secular Atheists compared to The More Healthy Ethic & Communication Ideals of Christianity

> Type “A” Personality Types and Stress, Meditation, & Buddhist Monks That Can Dry a Wet Towel with Their Body Heat

> The Counter-Intuitive Power of Christianity: Transforming Anger & Anxiety into Antifragile Christpower through "Christ OS" as if Virtue Software & Mediating on God's Spirit (Pneuma) as Breath and Monitoring your Breathing

> The Art of Awareness and Letting Go to Let "God"

> The Meaning of Saying "Jesus is Lord" in Proper Context Means Caesar is not Lord (i.e. Not the Ethic to Follow by Example)

> Reframing "Demons" as Metaphors representing Pagan Gods as Dark Triad Energy & the Villainous Nephilim Characters as the Bullies of the World and Jesus as Strongman Superhero "Exorcist" Who Tossess Out Negative Emotional Contagion (Insights from Michael Heiser & Paula Fredriksen)

> We Are All One Human Family According to Science

> Who am I? The Science of Who You Are—Your Grand Lineage & Cosmic Nature

> [Win-Win] Tribal Leadership by David Logan on TED.com

> Mindfulness Meditation: The Practice of Living in the Here & Now

> Building Self-Esteem - Part 1: Acting Confident, Liking Yourself, & Getting Your Needs Met

> Building Self-Esteem - Part 2: Self-Confidence Inventory Worksheet

Why the Bible being Mostly Allegory (including the Virgin Birth) does not Affect My Faith

 Here is why I am not troubled realizing many of the stories in the Bible may be allegory or metaphor, including the Virgin Birth. 

There is information we read in a newspaper and then there is reading a poem or watching a movie. If the reporter is honest the newspaper just tells us some facts. But I have watched movies that have changed my life. I watched the movie Rocky 4 in the theater as a kid and it inspired me to become stronger and exercise and fight back against bullies in Middle School. I have read poems that generate strong emotions in me. I think that "God" can work through the equivalent of movies and poems which is what the New Testament is to me. 

The New Testament is not a newspaper article just telling you some facts. That would be boring. Nobody puts down the newspaper and feels inspired to change their life. The New Testament inspires people to change their lives because the writers were using creative writing techniques and were experts at telling a story and using metaphorical language. God could have given the message in mathematical equations but that would be boring and stale. I choose to believe that there is a Divine Power that worked through the individual humans that wrote the New Testament. It was a combination of divine inspiration and human creativity. So in my view, I give credit to both a Divinity and the creative genius of the human authors who were like artists painting on their canvas. 

So my opinion is we should not worry about how "literally true" it is and be more interested in the creativity of the poetry and symbols; and notice how it inspires us and those around us to be more good, loyal, fair-minded, and happier, etc. 

Historians and scholars have been working to distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith for over 200 years. I have read the literature on the topic. I choose to believe in both the historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith. But my version of the Christ of Faith is different from Fundamentalists (literal believers). I have been influenced by many Christian historians and scholars, the one I like the best is Marcus Borg; his website: marcusjborg.org 

The simple facts are that Jesus died around 30 AD. Paul was writing in the 50s AD. Most of the New Testament is the writings of Paul. Paul did not discuss Jesus' life or what he said or did in any detail. Paul focuses more on the resurrected Christ that is a spirit. The first Gospel about Jesus' life was not written until 70 AD. So basically you have 40 years after Jesus died before Jesus's words and actions are written down. During that time those who knew Jesus had died. But before they died they shared their experiences of being around Jesus. Those who converted to the Jesus-Movement were told the stories about Jesus but did not write anything down. I believe that if we jumped in a time machine and went back to when Jesus lived we would simply see Jesus being a really good Jewish Rabbi. But he was not normal, he was very special and talked about very important things. I think we would see him healing people and not understand how he does it. I think we would see him criticizing religious dogmatism and those who focus on the "rules" too much and forget about actually loving each other. 

After he died his followers had visions of him resurrected. Overtime they felt inspired to practice what is called midrash or "narrative scripturalization." I collected several articles on this topic on my Christian blog in recommended reading section here. Scroll down to:

On the New Testament as Parabolic Scripturalization (or Midrash; a.k.a Figural Reading) 

These articles explain that it was a Jewish practice to retell the Old Testament stories in new ways. Paul would take a story in the Old Testament and retell it in a new way, feeling that he was inspired by the Christ Spirit to do so. This was not considered writing fiction but inspired retelling of old stories in new ways. So for example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus becomes a new and greater Moses, as the stories of Moses are retold in a new way where Jesus replaces Moses as the heroic leader. The readers at the time the Gospel of Matthew was written would have noticed this and realized this, and not been bothered or troubled by this.

As you can see things were not meant to be taken literally from the start but they were using poetry and retelling stories from the beginning. 

I am not claiming to be an expert, but I have read several books by historians and scholars about the "historical Jesus." Most historians have different opinions on who the historical Jesus was and what he really said and did, however there is a consensus. The consensus among historians is that the "historical Jesus" probably did not believe he was born of a virgin. Historians do not think that Joseph and Mary told Jesus he was born of a virgin and was the Son of God. This is what I think happened based on my research. It is only my opinion. 

I think Jesus was simply "born of a woman" (see Galatians 4:4; Paul wrote this around 50 AD). Paul never mentions the "virgin birth." The first Gospel written around 70 AD, the gospel of Mark, does not mention the virgin birth. The author of The Gospel of Matthew (written around 80 AD) read in the Septuagint (the Greek New Testament), in Isaiah, that the Messiah would be born of a "virgin." However, many scholars say that Matthew misunderstood that in Isaiah the word was not virgin but a "young woman." Or Matthew knew that, but wanted to compare Jesus to Augustus who was said to be born of a virgin and a Son of God. In other words, Matthew was trying to say the pagan emperor Augustus is not the true divine "son of God" and "born of a virgin," but Jesus was. See God in a Manger: The Message of the Gospels and the Problem of the Virgin Birth by N.T. Wright. 

Once Matthew started the story of the Virgin Birth then everyone repeated it. However you do not find the story of Jesus being born of a virgin before Matthew. I personally think it is just a symbolic way of Mathew saying that Jesus was given divine powers. 

What I think happened was Jesus simply grew up as a normal Jewish male; and at one point he felt inspired by God to liberate his people from oppression. He was against the corruptions among religious elites running the Temple and so he turned over the tables in the temple and that led to him getting killed.

I very much admire the historical Jesus. I think he was a theologically- liberal Jew, meaning he practiced Judaism in a very non-literal, non-dogmatic way. He was always interpreting the Torah in the most liberal way possible which emphasized loving others as yourself. 

When Jesus died he had such an impact on his followers that they had visions of him as the Resurrected Christ. I choose to believe these Visions really happened. I choose to believe something happened that made Jesus' disciples believe he was divine and resurrected. I cannot prove it. I choose to have faith which is the substance of things hoped for without evidence. When I exercise faith in the resurrection it just makes me feel better and I am less afraid of death and losing my loved ones in the grave. The resurrection simply means to me the hope that I will experience my loved ones again after I die. I did not like being an atheist for several years and believing that when we die we rot in the ground and are eaten by worms and we cease to exist. That was very morbid and depressing. I was never happy believing that. I like believing that we will live beyond the grave. It gives me hope and meaning and more happiness in my life.

As I talk about on this blog, I do believe that something powerful happened in the first century when Christian Scripture was produced. The god Zeus was a rapist. The Roman Emperor was called a "son of God" and he was a bully and a tyrant. When they said Jesus was a son of God and he was divine like Zeus, they were turning everything upside down. Why did the definition of what is a divine being change so radically all of a sudden between 50 - 130 AD? Before the New Testament, a Divinity or God was almost always described as a rich and powerful, conquering his enemies violently and many times enslaving and raping victims. Why did the New Testament authors all of a sudden feel inspired to reverse this definition of a Divinity? Never before (to my knowledge) had a God-man been described as a kind and charitable healer preaching fair-mindedness. The pagan gods were always rewarding the bullies and the rich. But here was Jesus being called divine and caring about everyone. 

I believe that the authors of the New Testament were inspired to create an algorithm in the language of parable and allegory, that produces good people. Just as an architect will follow an architecture plan to build a home, I believe that the symbolic architecture of the New Testament produces good people. 

I remember when I was a missionary in Brazil, and offering to help a man carry his job equipment home one day. He was an alcoholic and not the best father. After he started reading the scriptures with us, I remember the atmosphere of his home changed and there was more love and unity.

In my view, the New Testament revolutionized human consciousness and changed society. The pagan gods represented the ethical culture of their times. The pagan gods before Christianity were often cruel and capricious and rewarded the rich, the tyrants and rapists. The Christian authors felt inspired to use poetic language in describing Jesus as the real God-man and not these other Pagan God-men. By changing what it meant to be divine they changed human consciousness; as the new vision of deity transformed what it meant to be favored by the gods. For instead of the Pagan Gods favoring cruelty and violence and oppressing others, embracing Christ as divine led to people focusing on being kinder and generous and more fair-minded, as Christians sought to imitate the example of Peter, Paul, James and Jesus. This became the way to gain favor with divinity, by being forgiving not revengeful, being benevolent not a tyrant, and loving women and children rather than treating them like second class citizens which was common in that time. Who is to say that a real divine power did not inspire them to do this?

I think Jesus lived thinking that he was inspired by God and called by God to be a liberator of the oppressed. As we read in Luke 4: 17-19 (ESV):

 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He [Jesus] unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

    because he has anointed me

    to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

    and recovering of sight to the blind,

    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

I believe that Jesus indeed accomplished his mission. Because of Jesus, today we are more compassionate as a society, we have hospitals and charities and a political ideals that seek to manifest what Jesus taught. Before Jesus people would put unwanted babies outside to die, but Christians started adopting these babies. Because of Christianity people began to abolish slavery. Christianity changed human consciousness in the last 2,000 years. If that's not a miracle I don't know what is.

The Practical Usefulness of the Bible for Achieving your Best Life

When I was a kid I watched the movie Rocky 4 in the movie theater and was greatly inspired and it began my pursuit of Health and Fitness. I learned from Dr. Paul Dobransky's DVD Seminar Mature Masculine Power 3.0, that religious mythologies can be harnessed for their inspiring value and usefulness. Dobransky's formed a psychological method of using Greek mythology in order to achieve psychological wholeness and personal success, similar to how Rocky 4 had inspired me as a kid to get in shape. I realized that one could do the same thing using the Bible as a set of useful and inspiring stories to overcome setbacks and challenges. For example, if we are dealing with a difficult situation that requires courage we might be reminded of the story of David taking on Goliath. Or we might remember all of the passages where Paul talks about a kind of antifragile Christpower within him: where his losses and weaknesses don't stop him from getting back up after being knocked down and moving forward toward the greater cause he is seeking to achieve like a runner running a race. Sylvester Stallone said that he was inspired by his own Christianity in the writing of the Rocky movies. This is why the first Rocky movie opens up with Rocky boxing and the title of gym is the Resurrection.

Let's say I'm in an irritable mood and stuck in my ego and releasing negative tension on somebody else. Well I might have a flash of a phrase I read in the New Testament. For example, I might remember Proverbs 15: 1 (NRSV), "A soft answer turns away wrath,    but a harsh word stirs up anger." I might stop with my tone and say to myself, "Well I might feel good releasing tension onto the person but my tone is going to cause them to react back at me and generate defensive tension and an energy depleting tit-for-tat exchange that is lose-lose. So I might be influenced by the New Testament's message that everyone has value and intrinsic worth as a soul not just an assembly of atoms with no soul as with atheism. Seeing them as an Imager of Divinity (as Michael Heiser puts it) I will be more motivated to talk to them as a mirror reflection of my own soul, generating more positive energy between us which is mutually beneficial (win-win).

So what I have realized over the last several years is that when I was an atheistic reductionist, I was constantly chopping down any kind of metaphysical hope with hyper skepticism, and poking holes at any kind of faith or higher meaning in life. But I see now it was merely a defense mechanism, my frontal lobes were simply on high alert nitpicking any metaphysical assertion and I was not allowing my whole brain to experience the other side of being Human: the side of us that benefits from story, song, dance and meditative stances; connecting to something larger than ourselves. I craved an existential purpose like I had when I was a Christian missionary. 

My atheism only brought me temporary elated emotions on occasion, by feeling intellectually superior to others or discovering some scientific truth or historical data that excited me. But using the metaphor of peaks and valleys, I would only experience emotional peaks of intellectual elation and then fall back into the valley of despair from my atheism. So my intellectual highs were always short-lived and I was faced back into the abysmal void of a meaningless pointless cosmos where the soul does not exist and we are just gene-machines (robotic replicators: no better than copy machines) and destined to be worm food. I was often overlooking the reality of atheism by distracting myself into ignoring the existential dread and unyielding despair of authentic atheism. 

Once I allowed myself to feel Christian again, even if many of the stories were seen as "metaphorical truths" rather than scientific truths, I began to feel better on a deep psychological level. It was as if my soul was being filled with durable joy and a Source of ongoing positive energy was being funneled into me; and it made me feel more strong and powerful with a new vitality: as if I was a balloon being inflated with new existential meaning and purpose and a cosmic identity that filled my self-esteem with cosmic confidence and lasting well-being.

I was no longer a cosmic orphan, alone in the cosmos as an atheist, adrift in a black sea of meaninglessness; trying to stay afloat and worn out by the sinking feeling into dark nothingness pulling me under into the atheistic abyss. I was buoyed up by Christianity and inflated with existential meaning and felt connected to a Great Story and a People that shed blood and tears in generating a grand narrative of redemption and ideals through stories; which connected me to these lives out of which the stories developed and grew and it gave me a new group identity, a historical connectivity and sense of belonging, which was empowering.

As if cutting the mood of a room with a knife when someone negative leaves that room and you could tell the difference in the emotional atmosphere; I could feel the difference in my mood, deep in the inner core of my being: as I moved away from atheism toward being a pragmatic Christian.

I began to realize that I no longer cared if I could prove any of it as scientifically true or completely rational with equations. I began to care less if I could demonstrate it in a laboratory. For I'd already experienced the difference between atheism and Christianity in the laboratory of my own life. I realized that there was another kind of truth, metaphorical truth, like we see with inspiring stories, theater, art and the power of poetry and parables. I thought about the powerful feelings of being alive when I have written romantic poetry to a girlfriend and how those metaphors describing how I felt about her we're just as true as if I had express my affection through the science of love and talked about myself feeling the brain chemicals of dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. I began to realize that the New Testament is a love poem to reality. In this sense, Christianity has become for me poetry for the soul.

I began to refocus my attention on seeing the New Testament as a set of symbols and stories aimed at inspiring people to overcome challenges and be spiritually antifragile and build emotionally healthy Gardens of Relational Joy in their midst. I began to realize I wanted that peace and joy described in the New Testament. 

I no wanted less to intellectually one-up believers and chop down their hopes and beliefs. I didn't want the cold vapid message of atheism anymore. I wanted the cosmically fulfilling and empowering message of Christianity. I wanted to be more than a gene-machine and future worm food in a pointless existence. I no longer wanted to be stuck in a state of pessimistic moody nihilism like the character Russ Cole in the first season of True Detective. After all, if atheism were true and this life means nothing and we are nothing then what does it matter if I entertain a greater narrative for myself? Like Russ Cole at the end of True Detective, I wanted to look up and frame things so that amidst the darkness I was more focused on seeing the light shining forth and winning.

True Detective also helped me to see the unhealthy influence that pessimistic atheism can have on one's countenance and body and overall mood. Just compare Matthew McConaughey himself who is a Christian in real life (pictured below):

Compared to the pessimistic "energy" affecting his entire physiology while playing Russ Cole (below):

In this video, Matthew McConaughey reads from the New Testament, a passage from the apostle Paul, about Christians collectively acting as a single body of unified love energy. So that, so much unlike the pessimistic character he played in True Detective, in real life he sees himself and others having a united intrinsic value and his life has ultimate meaning and purpose. Which of course has an impact on his mood and attitude and physiology.

Rather than considering myself basically walking nothingness, the mere fantasy of being an actual "person" (as the character Russ Cole accurately explains the atheist view), a mere animal composed of atoms and cells and destined for Nothingness, I began to entertain the Christian belief again that I was something, and I could merge into a greater Something. What a world of difference that began to have on my psychology and physiology.

 I began to look at the Christian message psychologically and how much more empowering it felt to enter the narrative world of seeing myself as participating in a higher ideal, a greater cause larger than myself, and this notion of participating in the emergence of God's Realm: emerging on earth through transformed individuals representing God's Ideal Society. I began to realize that this metaphysical narrative was both metaphorically true and psychologically useful. But more than that my study of history, anthropology and sociology made it clear to me that such a metaphysical narrative was actually positively beneficial for individuals, friendships, families and societies.

Seeing myself as a member of a Divine Family rather than a member of only mindless atoms and cells (destined for nothingness as a walking nothing), Christianity provided me with a higher sense of meaning and a metaphysical identity which was psychologically empowering and fulfilling. 

I also realized that pragmatically speaking, as Jordan Peterson rightly argues in his discussion with Sue Blackmore, Reality itself selected for the Christian memes which interacted with our genes. In other words, the symbols and stories of Christianity were competitively more successful in the marketplace of ideas and spread mind to mind effectively in making us more civil and happier, thus benefiting our species because they were more useful and beneficial to the human organism. In fact, I would argue that the gene meme coevolution of the biblical stories led to what we modern people consider our conscience and our modern ethics. Thus, like a goldfish swimming in a pond and breathing in the water of the pond, the atheist is actually swimming in and breathing in the ethical water of Christianity. But then turning around and not at least appreciating the historical Waters that feed their current ethical conscience.

From a scientific perspective, why would I go against Reality and not benefit from a set of stories and symbols that were clearly more beneficial to my humanity than other narratives. It actually became clear to me that Ultimate Reality "wanted" me to believe these things because Reality had memetically evolved Christianity as organically useful to me personally and was benefiting our societal long-term thriving; and Reality had evoltionarily designed me with an imagination and the capacity for metaphorical thinking so that I would feel better believing in the Christian memes. From this perspective, it would actually be kind of stupid and unscientific to not benefit from Christianity.

I mean the atheistic fantasy of living in a world of Vulcans imitating the hyper rationality of the cold and emotionless Spock on Star Trek, is a nice idea and all; but it completely ignores our emotional human nature; and I simply would not want to live in a world devoid of emotion and comedy, movies, art, and poetry. I mean that is ultimately what Christianity is, an emotionally fulfilling life philosophy: full of comedy, theatrical art (midrash), and parabolic poetry.

I began to realize that psychologically, the Christian identity redefined my humanity as having cosmic value and purpose. Beyond being a mere gene replicator destined to disintegrate into nothingness, while believing in Ultimate Nothingness. Instead I realized that Christianity introduced me anew to the power of believing in Ultimate Somethingness. I was something, this world was something, life after death was something. Other people are somethings and not walking-nothings. I wanted to dwell in this narrative realm of somethingness because it gave me existential vitality, an identity, and a durable fulfillment.

What atheists do is only argue with the Fundamentalist types but ignore the more sophisticated philosophical theologians like Marcus Borg who encourages reading the Bible through a historical-metaphorical lens; that is, instead of asking if the story or event or passage is literally true, asking what is the historical context and the etymology of the words in the text. Then asking what is the psychological meaning behind the words; is there a metaphorical message? This approach has made scripture come alive for me even as a 21st century man who is rational and science-minded.

I have seen over the years that atheists are often "Christian atheists" pretending to be anti-christian. In other words, they have the same virtues and values espoused in the New Testament. If they were truly in line with darwinian evolution and pure atheism, then they would be more in line with the philosophy of Nietzsche which the Nazis used. This is covered in detail in the book by Abir Taha, titled Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: the Cult of the Superman; Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine. I challenge anyone to read that book and deny that Nietzsche's philosophy had no impact on the Nazis. Also see Nietzsche and the Nazis: A Personal View by Stephen Hicks. After studying the subject for years and at times not wanting to accept it, the fact is that the Nazis were inspired by Nietzsche's writings and utilized his pagan spirituality to do what they did. So I no longer have patience for the atheist who has zero appreciation for the powerful ethical impact that the New Testament had on humanity for the last two thousand years (which is covered in Tom Holland's book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World).

Many atheists want to instead hyper focus on the few bad apples within Christianity, past and present, and completely ignore the many authentic Christians who truly represent Christianity. They also overlook what the New Testament message is actually about: which is actually a condemnation of the kind of Christians that many atheists don't like. For example, Jesus spends almost all of his time criticizing his own fellow religious Jews in pointing out that some religious people are not changed from the inside out but act "holier than thou" and self-righteous. Jesus spends almost all of his time criticizing these types of spiritual fakers. In contrast to the religious fakers, the message of the New Testament is about being an actually transformed group of people as Christians that represent the ethical Good and model the Ideal Society. Christianity was not originally even a belief system, in other words it did not begin as a set list of intellectual propositions, but originally was about the one belief that Jesus was Lord (not Caesar as Lord), and after his crucifixion his message was metaphysically revived in the transformed lives of those who pledged their allegiance to Christ over Caesar.

There were very few essential "beliefs" in the original Jesus Movement. What the original Jesus People were mostly believing in and working toward was the practical emergence of God's ideal realm on earth as it existed in their idealistic perceptions of the heavenly realm; which they were seeking to socially build up on earth through healthy face-to-face relationships; and organically planting and cultivating in people's souls the spiritual Kingdom realm of God; which was essentially the ideal Just Society that every politically liberal atheist actually wants just as much as the politically conservative theist.

Jesus as Lord, not Caesar as Lord

I rarely hear it emphasized among Christians I talk to but as I see it, I interpret Jesus as Lord in contrast to Caesar as Lord. A little context: 

When Paul said Jesus is Lord, there was beginning to happen in Rome in the first century, the worship of Caesar as Son of God, Lord and Savior. The Caesar was considered the divine Savior because he brought peace to Rome through violence and for example bringing back slaves to Rome after conquering other peoples; who were basically treated as sex slaves. 

So when Paul proclaimed "Jesus was Lord," he was presenting a new moral ideal in seeing Jesus as the ideal Emperor rather than Ceasar. His rhetoric was also an insurgence. There was even the gospel of Ceasar, the good news of through Caesars killing other people and dominating them we now have, for example, people we can treat as property and use as sex slaves. Paul was countering this with his gospel or good news, that Jesus as Lord does not kill, bully and exploit people; but came to set people free and He demonstrated for imitation a new Way (the path of Radical Hospitality, Agape Love, and Healing, etc.). Christ as Lord inaugurated the better ideal, the Realm of God, manifesting Heaven's Realm into the world through his words and actions.

After Jesus died his disciples took up their calling as imitators of The Way and took to writing letters, Epistles and Gospels: that presented artistcally a non-violent emerging parabolic memeplex. Note that Sue Blackmore changed her mind and acknowledges that religion is not a mind virus, as she used to describe religious memes; and she now thinks religious memes can be healthy and beneficial memetic replicators. This ethical memeplex continued to organically spread Jesus' Way on earth (like seeds planted into soil and sprouting and flourishing) through the "called out ones" (Christians) who bodily imitated the Way of Christ and verbally spread the good news of Jesus as Lord (rather than Caesar as Lord).