How Christian Hospitals Expose Fundamentalist Christianity's Need For Secular Rehabilitation
A friend of mine posted this:
In reply, a Christian posted this:
"The church has been exponentially…exponentially more instrumental in building and manning hospitals over the centuries than anything offered from enlightenment thinkers on-up to modernity. All in the tradition of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The church never saw it as “fixing God’s mistakes.”
Of course Jesus didn’t opine morally over the robbers who beat the man. But, the moral law demanded that they love their neighbor as themselves.
In fact, Jesus looked at both natural and moral evil and without hesitation said, “unless you repent you too will perish as they did.”
Luke 13:1-5"
------------------------
In reply, I offer this:
1. "The church..."
-
Which church?
The Mormons?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Catholics?
Mainstream Protestant Conservative Evangelicals?
The Manson family?
-----------------------------
2. "has been exponentially…exponentially
--
In this context, “exponentially” is no more meaningful than "very much".
But the reality of that matter is not so simple.
I'll explain what I mean by that, as we continue.
-----------------------------
3. "more instrumental in building hospitals over the centuries"
--
-----------------------------
4. "more instrumental in manning hospitals over the centuries"
--
-----------------------------
5. "than anything *offered (*provided?) from enlightenment thinkers on-up to modernity."
--
To be fair, all churches include people who partake in "enlightenment thinking".
They are not isolated islands.
They are not free from the influences of secular thinking.
Instead, secular enlightened thinkers have been instrumental in helping Christian churches to grow logically and ethically.
In fact, we’re always looking for more ways to speed up that progress.
Providing and advancing medical care,
has always been a joint project between secular and religious persons.
It was simply not safe for non-religious persons to stand up and be count as non-believers;
because of the violent nature of identity politics.
The unofficial motto of dominant religions has always been
“Be one of us;
or else”.
However, that is not to say that all churches are equally violent.
"Conservative" churches stay very busy in the political arena ... trying to greatly reduce vulnerable people's access to healthcare.
More progressive churches may refrain from that evil.
Although, (for the most part) they also refrain from calling out that evil.
They also help the evil-versions of Christianity with P.R. and recruitment.
They are all guilty of hurting people.
However,
To give credit where credit is due …
The “further left” a church is, the less guilty they are of those evils.
---------------------
6. "All in the tradition of the parable of the Good Samaritan."
--
Ah yes.
The parable where the special and superior religious people were shamed for their collective apathy?
They were also shamed for so many missed opportunities to posture over outsiders as their moral superiors.
They weren't supposed to let lower human lifeforms outshine them.
It's a super racist story.
But still fun :)
Although, let's realize:
The organized Christian Churches are mafias.
Hospitals, for the most part, are extremely profitable adventures in exploitation.
They are merely disguised as altruism.
I'm not saying that everyone involved is trying to exploit anyone.
Nor am I saying that religious care-providers have worse motives than non-religious care-providers.
No.
I'm just pointing out that organized fundamentalist Christian churches are mafias.
Hospitals that have been built and operated by those religious institutions should not be seen as divinely directed efforts to ease the sufferings of humanity.
Their services are mostly limited to whoever can afford to pay.
They also charge for services based on how much money they can shake out of people's pockets.
--
Granted, they do often provide services on credit.
However, if they don't get paid, they will list it on your credit report.
That means they are going to spread rumors about you to anyone else you might try to do business with.
If spreading gossip (factual or not) is not okay for people in a church to do to each other, …
Why is it okay for church leaders to do this to patients of a church-sponsored hospital?
It’s an attempt to warn other people and agencies away from doing any business with you.
They’re painting you as a "bad risk" of questionable character.
Such a reputation could literally result in you greatly suffering;
and quite possibly your early death.
That's the whole point of putting it on your credit.
Now ask yourself.
Does that sound like something Jesus would do?
———
Meanwhile,
--
--
Notice how such ventures provide wealth, power, and prestige.
Notice also, the abundance of privileges that flow from these.
These are the very sorts of special empowerments which corrupt humans.
So it would make no sense for a God to tell humans to go set themselves up to reap such benefits.
"Spiritually" speaking, it's unwise to do that.
Thus, we can conclude:
no "wise" God would do that.
Thus,
no such entity did that.
Meanwhile,
notice how these work great (!) for public relations and cult-recruitment.
As more and more people join,
that generates even more profit, power, and privilege for their leaders.
That, in turn, creates a conflict of interests for any organization who wants to present its efforts as being altruistic;
or even as merely conducive to "spiritual" growth.
They could run their churches and hospitals in ways that are ethical and wise.
They'd just rather not.
These are great examples of how
combining Conservative ideology with religious ideology actually maximizes human suffering.
---------------------
7. "The church never saw it as “fixing God’s mistakes.”
--
True.
But the meme merely points out:
They should see it that way.
Think about it.
Per Christian theological narratives, ...
Everything happens according to their deity's will;
and for the greater good.
So then we have a "God" who pre-planned, built, and quietly oversees a "plan"/system where:
* Countless people are born with random imperfections.
* Some of those imperfections either
ARE severe health-and-function problems
or
otherwise CAUSE severe healthy-and-function problems.
*And then the same designer of that plan
slowly, gradually, eventually inspires God-fans to start trying to repair the damages.
Now, if those health-and-function impairments are mistakes, then your deity makes mistakes.
And then people try fixing his mistakes.
Whereas, if those are on purpose and Non-regretted then:
That is actually even worse.
Only a psychopath does such things on purpose.
Whereas, the "mistakes"-explanation would UPGRADE "God";
FROM:
clever psychopath
[setting fires of destruction, and then paying people with “treasures in Heaven” to "rescue" victims from said fires]
TO:
Incompetent sociopath.
[He didn't do that stuff on purpose.
But doesn't care to fix it himself.
He just casually influences fans to mitigate some (a very small amount) of the damages in this name;
and mostly for the sake of his own P.R image.]
Now, if any "Church" is operating (some pun intended) as their deity's hands (providing healing on behalf of their "God"),
then:
That "God" is personally intervening (and showing favoritism) in the lives of anyone who has health insurance.
In that case, it makes no sense that he doesn't get more involved by just miracle-curing everyone who needs it; even if he limits that to people who are pleasing him.
He either believes it's ok for himself to intervene down here ... or he doesn't.
If he DOESN'T think HE should be intervening down here with people's health-and-function struggles,
then:
There's no way he is involved.
But in that case, he should not be given credit for any charitable efforts that any "Church" engages in.
In that case, it becomes dishonest for any Christian to showcase the actions of any "Church" as a promotion for their religion.
Because then their efforts are done *as mere humans* working alone; without any god's help.
That is, by the way, the definition of "secular".
"Secular" doesn't mean "no gods exist".
It means anything (thoughts, actions, etc) which isn't specifically and directly credited to any deity.
So if a very religious person chooses a favorite flavor of ice cream, ...
Unless their religious texts SAY that flavor is better than the others, ...
they've just made a secular decision.
The same applies to important ethical issues.
If a very religious person concludes that "it's wrong to own another human as property", ...
Unless their religious texts SAY "it's wrong to own another human as property",
they've just formed a secular conclusion to say "it's wrong to own another human as property".
Religious leaders only ever get that idea from:
Secular wisdom.
They don't get it from any "God".
I say that (with confidence) because:
It's entirely unreasonable to speak from the premise of:
"Oops. The Creator of the Universe FORGOT to tell us something important, when he was still authoring his canon.
So all these centuries later,
after so much pointless injustice, ...
He interrupted my nap yesterday, to update his One True Religion".
This point also reveals a critical flaw in recognizing Saul/Paul of being appointed by Jesus
to clarify what Jesus really meant
and
to say additional stuff Jesus forgot to say.
This point applies equally well to the claim that Jesus (and various Christian writers)
showed up to clarify what the Hebrew texts "really meant" and forgot to say.
This same point applies equally well to Muhammed showing up to "set the record straight" about all the stuff ancient Hebrews and early Christians got wrong.
This same point applies to all later versions of Christianity, ...
where their own founding icons showed up to set the record straight about all the stuff
all Christian sects since the 2nd century got wrong.
All such revisions are just people
working under secular inspiration
Every time they claimed to be speaking by divine appointment, they were lying.
Please note:
I'm not vouching for the Biblical Hebrew understandings of “God” either.
They too were false.
In fact, this fact is common knowledge among qualified historians.
We know how their religious stories formed.
They copied and adapted stories from other/older cultures.
All the while, random nobodies would just randomly announce that their favorite deity just told him something their favorite deity FORGOT to say before;
-and (of course) couldn't be bothered to tell everyone else personally.
It is, of course, unreasonable for anyone to claim a "true religion" was built upon a false religion.
The earliest versions of "The God of Abraham" were based on false religious history.
All later versions are built upon that.
Thus, they are all false.
But we can still put that realization on a shelf; to examine the rest of the issues on the table.
--
Meanwhile,
people are fixing some deity’s mistakes,
if a "God" exists.
If a “God” does not want Christians to heal people,
then Christian-healers are healing people in DEFIANCE against the god who injured us.
Whereas,
If a “God” does want Christian-healers to heal people, then
Christian-healers are helping a “God” miniplate us.
It would be like me arranging for someone to get mugged and stabbed (while I hide and WATCH) ... and then hiring someone with an IOU (treasures in heaven) to treat those wounds on my behalf so that my organization (under my leadership) could be praised for "helping".
--
If Christian theological narratives are correct
(or, even if we merely humor those, for the sake of argument; to see where the logic leads)
...
It would mean that their "God" designed TWO systems.
1. The Temporary "everything is working perfectly" system.
Next:
2. The Long-term Plan-B system where everything goes-to-shit;
exactly in the ways they were DESIGNED to go-to-shit.
Once the carefully “designed” backup system engages (after Eve eats the fruit):
* Randomly chosen animals suddenly MORPH into meat-eaters.
* Randomly chosen insects and microorganisms MORPH into blood-sucking,
living-tissue-eating,
suffering-and-death machines.
* The weather turns deadly.
* The sun starts giving us cancer.
* Plate tectonics starts earthquakes and spewing molten rock.
* Appendixes randomly burst.
* Teeth become infected.
* Our NERVES conduct a god-chosen amount of pain-signals.
* our brains turn those signals into a GOD-CHOSEN AMOUNT of suffering.
* Invisible Arsenic gets deposited into random bodies of otherwise-fine water.
* Random assorted plants and fungi become specifically poisonous (but look almost identical to some perfectly-safe versions).
etc..
–
It makes no sense to try to remedy a good thing.
So it must be a bad thing.
And we can't really blame all forms of suffering on mankind, because many forms of suffering are not caused by humans.
Christians worship a conceptualized "God" who:
pre-planned it all,
made sure it would all happen,
watched it all happen,
chooses not to fix most of it,
and plans to personally benefit from all those forms of suffering.
Christians recognize those things need to remedy.
Therefore, Christians are "Fixing their God's mistakes".
--------------------------------
8.
"Of course Jesus didn’t opine morally over the robbers who beat the man."
--
It's good of you to both realize and admit it.
--------------------------------
9. "But, the moral law demanded that they love their neighbor as themselves."
--
It's a shame their "God" took so long to FIND OUT other/older cultures had such laws
and then to copy/paste/adapt it for themselves.
However,
that directive was only about their religiously-same, ethnic-tribally-same neighbors.
It would be exactly like a KKK leader telling members at a Klan Rally ... "Love your neighbors".
They weren't talking about all humans.
This is exactly like "This land (wherever we happen to be) for Jews!"
Israel First".
They were talking TO a people who self-segregated;
as commanded by their still-in-effect religious laws.
They kept to themselves.
They were xenophobes.
"Love your neighbors" was said in that cultural context.
Their fellow Jews.
They were told to love those neighbors.
That, in turn, set the ideological standard for later-existing Christians.
As a result,
they also treat their religion like a race,
brag about how good they sort of are (but aren’t really) to each other,
and dream of a day when everyone else rots.
Now, if you want to imagine it as meaning "love everyone in the world",
then:
We have a whole new problem.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Bibles failed to define what counts as "loving", EXCEPT to give God-fans LOTS of reason to think being destructive is "loving".
My ex was like that.
If you ask her, she will tell you that she was incredibly loving towards me.
She's not lying.
Clinical narcissists simply have a special (fucked up) understanding of what "love" is.
The same is true of all the religions created by and for clinical narcissists.
That religious culture's ideas about "love"
left countless Jewish men (and early Christian men)
free to marry barely-pubescent girls.
Those girls were still too young to know what they wanted to do with their lives.
They were too young to understand what sacrifices parenting will require.
They were too under-educated about how to raise kids.
Their bodies were too underdeveloped to minimize the mortality risks of carrying a baby to term.
They were also unable to refuse.
Later,
it also left people like Saint Augustine free to hunt, capture, torture, and kill all heretics.
That was very loving.
According to the Catholic church,
that's what it took to minimize the amount of people who will end up in a literal Hell forever.
Today, it also leaves millions of Christians free to think it is "loving" to drive countless LGBT-children to Un-Alive themselves.
I've spoken with many Christians about that.
I'm told this:
All those kids Un-Alive-ing themselves
is an unfortunate but necessary result of telling "the truth" to kids who aren't spiritually mature enough to handle "the truth".
But if they aren't ready to safely hear a thing,
then why intentionally put their lives in danger?
According to Christians,
kids need to feel awful about themselves.
That way, they might BECOME someone who is DESPERATE to feel washed-clean and FORGIVEN for their nastiness.
As a result,
some child psychologies crumble into suicide.
That's unavoidable.
However, many will survive; merely severely traumatized.
Among the scarred survivors,
some few will finally feel like a good solution to the self-loathing (the self-loathing that Christians caused in the first place) is:
to surrender to the Christians.
This is how Christian colonizers conquer vulnerable minds.
Make no mistake, they are coming after everyone's children.
They're willing to sacrifice their own children.
But they're not satisfied with just their own.
They want yours too.
It also creates rampant domestic violence,
by abusing young minds into denying their true worth.
That way, hobbled minds will think there is wisdom in begging a larger-than-life Father (and other men) for scraps of "undeserved" kindness.
By design, that continually worsens emotionally stunted people's vulnerability and co-dependence.
It exemplifies and normalizes psychopathic values.
It also pressures young people to get married to people they barely know;
by demonizing sexual desires and then allowing for only one religiously-legal way to meet those needs.
After that, they pressure their own abused children to stay married to their abuser, to please "God".
This, in turn, helps keep their own children in a perpetually vulnerable and struggling state.
That, in turn, helps keep their children extra-dependent on church, family, and religious leaders
for help COPING with the stresses of life which that religious community made worse in the first place.
So much of that life-wrecking game they are playing depends on people failing standards that fallible predators invented.
Those standards are expressed as lists of DOs and DON'TS.
But if any outsider asks about this, just LIE to them.
Tell them "In Christianity, there really aren't any rules".
--
Meanwhile, ...
Eventually,
people who outgrow all that abusive bullshit
will start to realize:
These are just a random few of countless examples of God-fans needing secular help to become gradually less awful.
----------------------------------
10. "In fact, Jesus looked at both natural and moral evil"
--
I don't recall that literary character making any such distinction.
But ok.
So?
----------------------------------
11. "and without hesitation said, “unless you repent, you too will perish as they did.
Luke 13:1-5"
--
Let's translate that into honest-English.
"Unless you surrender to my Mafia family, my God-Father will kill you; or worse.
In fact, he has already ordered a HIT on everyone.
He is simply offering to cancel that hit for individuals who surrender.
But surrender to whom?
To the authority of any random human asshole who claims to wield authority on his behalf.
According to evangelizers,
surrendering to this threat will result in being “saved" from what he will do
to everyone who doesn’t surrender.
Christianity is literally a Protection Racket.
It's extortion.
However, the laws (which protect people from extortion) exempt religious extortion.
Why?
Because religious mafias have hijacked the human political systems which write and enforce those laws.
And because they'll get physically violent if you "oppress" them by not letting them be criminals.
They justify all of that by saying "God told us to do these things".
That’s how they gain and hold exploitable power over vulnerable others.
--
Meanwhile, ...
Welcome to Earth;
third rock from the Sun.
Here, everyone who "repents" (per your stupid and abusive religion's narrative-definition of repenting) ... still perishes.
Now, you could argue that your deity re-alives people later.
But that amounts to saying "Ok. fine. My deity failed to keep one promise. But he'll make up for it later with a different promise".
[Just try not to notice
that such a promise would still be a lie,
EVEN IF the promise were kept.
Because it boils down to:
REPLACING you with an improved clone]
However,
since people writing in his name LIED to you already,
why believe they are telling the truth about anything else?
Think about it.
Allegedly, the wages of "sin" is physical death.
It wasn't talking about "spiritual death" (not that any person who isn't YET "spiritually alive" could "spiritually die" anyway).
It was specifically about WHY people physically die; the very thing Adam and Eve (in those stupid stories) were warned about.
And yet,
your stupid religion says those debts were PAID OFF;
for everyone who "accepts it" as true.
And yet, you still DIE.
So ask yourself …
Why are you paying on a DEBT (a debt in God's leger) that your religion says you do not actually owe?
We can’t really say it’s an oversight, from a God who is bad at bookkeeping; if “God” doesn’t make mistakes.
That broken promise was always a lie.
But don't worry!
It's followed with another hollow promise;
that He will make it up to you later.
Meanwhile, the people making that promise “in His name” have tremendous control over your life.
They are also personally profiting from that control.
But since you don't realize what's really happening,
you actually thank them for it.
In reply, a Christian posted this:
"The church has been exponentially…exponentially more instrumental in building and manning hospitals over the centuries than anything offered from enlightenment thinkers on-up to modernity. All in the tradition of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The church never saw it as “fixing God’s mistakes.”
Of course Jesus didn’t opine morally over the robbers who beat the man. But, the moral law demanded that they love their neighbor as themselves.
In fact, Jesus looked at both natural and moral evil and without hesitation said, “unless you repent you too will perish as they did.”
Luke 13:1-5"
------------------------
In reply, I offer this:
1. "The church..."
-
Which church?
The Mormons?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Catholics?
Mainstream Protestant Conservative Evangelicals?
The Manson family?
-----------------------------
2. "has been exponentially…exponentially
--
In this context, “exponentially” is no more meaningful than "very much".
But the reality of that matter is not so simple.
I'll explain what I mean by that, as we continue.
-----------------------------
3. "more instrumental in building hospitals over the centuries"
--
-----------------------------
4. "more instrumental in manning hospitals over the centuries"
--
-----------------------------
5. "than anything *offered (*provided?) from enlightenment thinkers on-up to modernity."
--
To be fair, all churches include people who partake in "enlightenment thinking".
They are not isolated islands.
They are not free from the influences of secular thinking.
Instead, secular enlightened thinkers have been instrumental in helping Christian churches to grow logically and ethically.
In fact, we’re always looking for more ways to speed up that progress.
Providing and advancing medical care,
has always been a joint project between secular and religious persons.
It was simply not safe for non-religious persons to stand up and be count as non-believers;
because of the violent nature of identity politics.
The unofficial motto of dominant religions has always been
“Be one of us;
or else”.
However, that is not to say that all churches are equally violent.
"Conservative" churches stay very busy in the political arena ... trying to greatly reduce vulnerable people's access to healthcare.
More progressive churches may refrain from that evil.
Although, (for the most part) they also refrain from calling out that evil.
They also help the evil-versions of Christianity with P.R. and recruitment.
They are all guilty of hurting people.
However,
To give credit where credit is due …
The “further left” a church is, the less guilty they are of those evils.
---------------------
6. "All in the tradition of the parable of the Good Samaritan."
--
Ah yes.
The parable where the special and superior religious people were shamed for their collective apathy?
They were also shamed for so many missed opportunities to posture over outsiders as their moral superiors.
They weren't supposed to let lower human lifeforms outshine them.
It's a super racist story.
But still fun :)
Although, let's realize:
The organized Christian Churches are mafias.
Hospitals, for the most part, are extremely profitable adventures in exploitation.
They are merely disguised as altruism.
I'm not saying that everyone involved is trying to exploit anyone.
Nor am I saying that religious care-providers have worse motives than non-religious care-providers.
No.
I'm just pointing out that organized fundamentalist Christian churches are mafias.
Hospitals that have been built and operated by those religious institutions should not be seen as divinely directed efforts to ease the sufferings of humanity.
Their services are mostly limited to whoever can afford to pay.
They also charge for services based on how much money they can shake out of people's pockets.
--
Granted, they do often provide services on credit.
However, if they don't get paid, they will list it on your credit report.
That means they are going to spread rumors about you to anyone else you might try to do business with.
If spreading gossip (factual or not) is not okay for people in a church to do to each other, …
Why is it okay for church leaders to do this to patients of a church-sponsored hospital?
It’s an attempt to warn other people and agencies away from doing any business with you.
They’re painting you as a "bad risk" of questionable character.
Such a reputation could literally result in you greatly suffering;
and quite possibly your early death.
That's the whole point of putting it on your credit.
Now ask yourself.
Does that sound like something Jesus would do?
———
Meanwhile,
--
--
Notice how such ventures provide wealth, power, and prestige.
Notice also, the abundance of privileges that flow from these.
These are the very sorts of special empowerments which corrupt humans.
So it would make no sense for a God to tell humans to go set themselves up to reap such benefits.
"Spiritually" speaking, it's unwise to do that.
Thus, we can conclude:
no "wise" God would do that.
Thus,
no such entity did that.
Meanwhile,
notice how these work great (!) for public relations and cult-recruitment.
As more and more people join,
that generates even more profit, power, and privilege for their leaders.
That, in turn, creates a conflict of interests for any organization who wants to present its efforts as being altruistic;
or even as merely conducive to "spiritual" growth.
They could run their churches and hospitals in ways that are ethical and wise.
They'd just rather not.
These are great examples of how
combining Conservative ideology with religious ideology actually maximizes human suffering.
---------------------
7. "The church never saw it as “fixing God’s mistakes.”
--
True.
But the meme merely points out:
They should see it that way.
Think about it.
Per Christian theological narratives, ...
Everything happens according to their deity's will;
and for the greater good.
So then we have a "God" who pre-planned, built, and quietly oversees a "plan"/system where:
* Countless people are born with random imperfections.
* Some of those imperfections either
ARE severe health-and-function problems
or
otherwise CAUSE severe healthy-and-function problems.
*And then the same designer of that plan
slowly, gradually, eventually inspires God-fans to start trying to repair the damages.
Now, if those health-and-function impairments are mistakes, then your deity makes mistakes.
And then people try fixing his mistakes.
Whereas, if those are on purpose and Non-regretted then:
That is actually even worse.
Only a psychopath does such things on purpose.
Whereas, the "mistakes"-explanation would UPGRADE "God";
FROM:
clever psychopath
[setting fires of destruction, and then paying people with “treasures in Heaven” to "rescue" victims from said fires]
TO:
Incompetent sociopath.
[He didn't do that stuff on purpose.
But doesn't care to fix it himself.
He just casually influences fans to mitigate some (a very small amount) of the damages in this name;
and mostly for the sake of his own P.R image.]
Now, if any "Church" is operating (some pun intended) as their deity's hands (providing healing on behalf of their "God"),
then:
That "God" is personally intervening (and showing favoritism) in the lives of anyone who has health insurance.
In that case, it makes no sense that he doesn't get more involved by just miracle-curing everyone who needs it; even if he limits that to people who are pleasing him.
He either believes it's ok for himself to intervene down here ... or he doesn't.
If he DOESN'T think HE should be intervening down here with people's health-and-function struggles,
then:
There's no way he is involved.
But in that case, he should not be given credit for any charitable efforts that any "Church" engages in.
In that case, it becomes dishonest for any Christian to showcase the actions of any "Church" as a promotion for their religion.
Because then their efforts are done *as mere humans* working alone; without any god's help.
That is, by the way, the definition of "secular".
"Secular" doesn't mean "no gods exist".
It means anything (thoughts, actions, etc) which isn't specifically and directly credited to any deity.
So if a very religious person chooses a favorite flavor of ice cream, ...
Unless their religious texts SAY that flavor is better than the others, ...
they've just made a secular decision.
The same applies to important ethical issues.
If a very religious person concludes that "it's wrong to own another human as property", ...
Unless their religious texts SAY "it's wrong to own another human as property",
they've just formed a secular conclusion to say "it's wrong to own another human as property".
Religious leaders only ever get that idea from:
Secular wisdom.
They don't get it from any "God".
I say that (with confidence) because:
It's entirely unreasonable to speak from the premise of:
"Oops. The Creator of the Universe FORGOT to tell us something important, when he was still authoring his canon.
So all these centuries later,
after so much pointless injustice, ...
He interrupted my nap yesterday, to update his One True Religion".
This point also reveals a critical flaw in recognizing Saul/Paul of being appointed by Jesus
to clarify what Jesus really meant
and
to say additional stuff Jesus forgot to say.
This point applies equally well to the claim that Jesus (and various Christian writers)
showed up to clarify what the Hebrew texts "really meant" and forgot to say.
This same point applies equally well to Muhammed showing up to "set the record straight" about all the stuff ancient Hebrews and early Christians got wrong.
This same point applies to all later versions of Christianity, ...
where their own founding icons showed up to set the record straight about all the stuff
all Christian sects since the 2nd century got wrong.
All such revisions are just people
working under secular inspiration
Every time they claimed to be speaking by divine appointment, they were lying.
Please note:
I'm not vouching for the Biblical Hebrew understandings of “God” either.
They too were false.
In fact, this fact is common knowledge among qualified historians.
We know how their religious stories formed.
They copied and adapted stories from other/older cultures.
All the while, random nobodies would just randomly announce that their favorite deity just told him something their favorite deity FORGOT to say before;
-and (of course) couldn't be bothered to tell everyone else personally.
It is, of course, unreasonable for anyone to claim a "true religion" was built upon a false religion.
The earliest versions of "The God of Abraham" were based on false religious history.
All later versions are built upon that.
Thus, they are all false.
But we can still put that realization on a shelf; to examine the rest of the issues on the table.
--
Meanwhile,
people are fixing some deity’s mistakes,
if a "God" exists.
If a “God” does not want Christians to heal people,
then Christian-healers are healing people in DEFIANCE against the god who injured us.
Whereas,
If a “God” does want Christian-healers to heal people, then
Christian-healers are helping a “God” miniplate us.
It would be like me arranging for someone to get mugged and stabbed (while I hide and WATCH) ... and then hiring someone with an IOU (treasures in heaven) to treat those wounds on my behalf so that my organization (under my leadership) could be praised for "helping".
--
If Christian theological narratives are correct
(or, even if we merely humor those, for the sake of argument; to see where the logic leads)
...
It would mean that their "God" designed TWO systems.
1. The Temporary "everything is working perfectly" system.
Next:
2. The Long-term Plan-B system where everything goes-to-shit;
exactly in the ways they were DESIGNED to go-to-shit.
Once the carefully “designed” backup system engages (after Eve eats the fruit):
* Randomly chosen animals suddenly MORPH into meat-eaters.
* Randomly chosen insects and microorganisms MORPH into blood-sucking,
living-tissue-eating,
suffering-and-death machines.
* The weather turns deadly.
* The sun starts giving us cancer.
* Plate tectonics starts earthquakes and spewing molten rock.
* Appendixes randomly burst.
* Teeth become infected.
* Our NERVES conduct a god-chosen amount of pain-signals.
* our brains turn those signals into a GOD-CHOSEN AMOUNT of suffering.
* Invisible Arsenic gets deposited into random bodies of otherwise-fine water.
* Random assorted plants and fungi become specifically poisonous (but look almost identical to some perfectly-safe versions).
etc..
–
It makes no sense to try to remedy a good thing.
So it must be a bad thing.
And we can't really blame all forms of suffering on mankind, because many forms of suffering are not caused by humans.
Christians worship a conceptualized "God" who:
pre-planned it all,
made sure it would all happen,
watched it all happen,
chooses not to fix most of it,
and plans to personally benefit from all those forms of suffering.
Christians recognize those things need to remedy.
Therefore, Christians are "Fixing their God's mistakes".
--------------------------------
8.
"Of course Jesus didn’t opine morally over the robbers who beat the man."
--
It's good of you to both realize and admit it.
--------------------------------
9. "But, the moral law demanded that they love their neighbor as themselves."
--
It's a shame their "God" took so long to FIND OUT other/older cultures had such laws
and then to copy/paste/adapt it for themselves.
However,
that directive was only about their religiously-same, ethnic-tribally-same neighbors.
It would be exactly like a KKK leader telling members at a Klan Rally ... "Love your neighbors".
They weren't talking about all humans.
This is exactly like "This land (wherever we happen to be) for Jews!"
Israel First".
They were talking TO a people who self-segregated;
as commanded by their still-in-effect religious laws.
They kept to themselves.
They were xenophobes.
"Love your neighbors" was said in that cultural context.
Their fellow Jews.
They were told to love those neighbors.
That, in turn, set the ideological standard for later-existing Christians.
As a result,
they also treat their religion like a race,
brag about how good they sort of are (but aren’t really) to each other,
and dream of a day when everyone else rots.
Now, if you want to imagine it as meaning "love everyone in the world",
then:
We have a whole new problem.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Bibles failed to define what counts as "loving", EXCEPT to give God-fans LOTS of reason to think being destructive is "loving".
My ex was like that.
If you ask her, she will tell you that she was incredibly loving towards me.
She's not lying.
Clinical narcissists simply have a special (fucked up) understanding of what "love" is.
The same is true of all the religions created by and for clinical narcissists.
That religious culture's ideas about "love"
left countless Jewish men (and early Christian men)
free to marry barely-pubescent girls.
Those girls were still too young to know what they wanted to do with their lives.
They were too young to understand what sacrifices parenting will require.
They were too under-educated about how to raise kids.
Their bodies were too underdeveloped to minimize the mortality risks of carrying a baby to term.
They were also unable to refuse.
Later,
it also left people like Saint Augustine free to hunt, capture, torture, and kill all heretics.
That was very loving.
According to the Catholic church,
that's what it took to minimize the amount of people who will end up in a literal Hell forever.
Today, it also leaves millions of Christians free to think it is "loving" to drive countless LGBT-children to Un-Alive themselves.
I've spoken with many Christians about that.
I'm told this:
All those kids Un-Alive-ing themselves
is an unfortunate but necessary result of telling "the truth" to kids who aren't spiritually mature enough to handle "the truth".
But if they aren't ready to safely hear a thing,
then why intentionally put their lives in danger?
According to Christians,
kids need to feel awful about themselves.
That way, they might BECOME someone who is DESPERATE to feel washed-clean and FORGIVEN for their nastiness.
As a result,
some child psychologies crumble into suicide.
That's unavoidable.
However, many will survive; merely severely traumatized.
Among the scarred survivors,
some few will finally feel like a good solution to the self-loathing (the self-loathing that Christians caused in the first place) is:
to surrender to the Christians.
This is how Christian colonizers conquer vulnerable minds.
Make no mistake, they are coming after everyone's children.
They're willing to sacrifice their own children.
But they're not satisfied with just their own.
They want yours too.
It also creates rampant domestic violence,
by abusing young minds into denying their true worth.
That way, hobbled minds will think there is wisdom in begging a larger-than-life Father (and other men) for scraps of "undeserved" kindness.
By design, that continually worsens emotionally stunted people's vulnerability and co-dependence.
It exemplifies and normalizes psychopathic values.
It also pressures young people to get married to people they barely know;
by demonizing sexual desires and then allowing for only one religiously-legal way to meet those needs.
After that, they pressure their own abused children to stay married to their abuser, to please "God".
This, in turn, helps keep their own children in a perpetually vulnerable and struggling state.
That, in turn, helps keep their children extra-dependent on church, family, and religious leaders
for help COPING with the stresses of life which that religious community made worse in the first place.
So much of that life-wrecking game they are playing depends on people failing standards that fallible predators invented.
Those standards are expressed as lists of DOs and DON'TS.
But if any outsider asks about this, just LIE to them.
Tell them "In Christianity, there really aren't any rules".
--
Meanwhile, ...
Eventually,
people who outgrow all that abusive bullshit
will start to realize:
These are just a random few of countless examples of God-fans needing secular help to become gradually less awful.
----------------------------------
10. "In fact, Jesus looked at both natural and moral evil"
--
I don't recall that literary character making any such distinction.
But ok.
So?
----------------------------------
11. "and without hesitation said, “unless you repent, you too will perish as they did.
Luke 13:1-5"
--
Let's translate that into honest-English.
"Unless you surrender to my Mafia family, my God-Father will kill you; or worse.
In fact, he has already ordered a HIT on everyone.
He is simply offering to cancel that hit for individuals who surrender.
But surrender to whom?
To the authority of any random human asshole who claims to wield authority on his behalf.
According to evangelizers,
surrendering to this threat will result in being “saved" from what he will do
to everyone who doesn’t surrender.
Christianity is literally a Protection Racket.
It's extortion.
However, the laws (which protect people from extortion) exempt religious extortion.
Why?
Because religious mafias have hijacked the human political systems which write and enforce those laws.
And because they'll get physically violent if you "oppress" them by not letting them be criminals.
They justify all of that by saying "God told us to do these things".
That’s how they gain and hold exploitable power over vulnerable others.
--
Meanwhile, ...
Welcome to Earth;
third rock from the Sun.
Here, everyone who "repents" (per your stupid and abusive religion's narrative-definition of repenting) ... still perishes.
Now, you could argue that your deity re-alives people later.
But that amounts to saying "Ok. fine. My deity failed to keep one promise. But he'll make up for it later with a different promise".
[Just try not to notice
that such a promise would still be a lie,
EVEN IF the promise were kept.
Because it boils down to:
REPLACING you with an improved clone]
However,
since people writing in his name LIED to you already,
why believe they are telling the truth about anything else?
Think about it.
Allegedly, the wages of "sin" is physical death.
It wasn't talking about "spiritual death" (not that any person who isn't YET "spiritually alive" could "spiritually die" anyway).
It was specifically about WHY people physically die; the very thing Adam and Eve (in those stupid stories) were warned about.
And yet,
your stupid religion says those debts were PAID OFF;
for everyone who "accepts it" as true.
And yet, you still DIE.
So ask yourself …
Why are you paying on a DEBT (a debt in God's leger) that your religion says you do not actually owe?
We can’t really say it’s an oversight, from a God who is bad at bookkeeping; if “God” doesn’t make mistakes.
That broken promise was always a lie.
But don't worry!
It's followed with another hollow promise;
that He will make it up to you later.
Meanwhile, the people making that promise “in His name” have tremendous control over your life.
They are also personally profiting from that control.
But since you don't realize what's really happening,
you actually thank them for it.
Comments
Post a Comment