Thanks for informing me. Alas, 98% of your comment is ad hominem, so it’s properly dismissed as though it hadn’t been written. The two percent that’s substantive is confused: the kind of love at issue is charity, and the upper class doesn’t need charity. That’s the meaning of my statement that Christianity catered to the underclass by developing a special kind of love that would appeal specifically to those who need a lot of help in life. That’s not the rich or the mighty.
And I don't affirm the existence of a god of nature here. I talk about what the god of nature "would" be like if it existed. Elsewhere, though, I argue for pantheism.
Let me know when you’ve got something more substantive and relevant to say about my arguments. Until then, you might want to ponder why you’re so easily triggered by such a criticism of Christianity. Could it be that you suspect the atheistic objections are fully justified?
I see from your profile article that you’re a fan of Jordan Peterson. That doesn’t bode well for your thinking. See my articles below for why his dilettantism is roughly as lamentable as Christianity or Trumpism.
