Why "Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong"

 An Introduction To Christianity. 

Why "Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong"

Our journey begins with this YouTube video.

My own thoughts about that video are mixed.

It makes great points.

Granted, 
rather than having the old man speak for himself, 
the more accurate illustration would be several old men claiming (without evidence) to speak for "The" Old Man.

However, I am reminded that Darkmatter2525 doesn't usually bother to clarify this either;
since everyone familiar with these issues already realizes how it really works. 
--

 In response to this short video, 
one man (a Christian) wrote:
"In the actual story the "children" ran through the house like nothing happened and lived of him, destroying and subjugating him I'm talking about the Roman pagans of course, and how Christianity humanized the world by reforming whatever was that Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong" ---
I am translating that to mean this:
---
"In the actual story, the "children" of Rome ran through God's Jewish property like they didn't even notice God was there. They lived off of him. They also kept destroying and subjugating his chosen people. They kept disrespecting God. Meanwhile, Christianity humanized the world . Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong." --- Here, I respond; by explaining Christianity to a Christian.

First, the entire concept of a "chosen people" and a "promised land" is really just the idea of a Master Race of Master Race-ists who feel entitled to violently steal and claim any land they wish they had. This is where Christians got the idea of #Colonizing4Jesus. It's a monstrous way of thinking which has only ever brought violent injustice to our world. It's really as far AWAY FROM "humanizing" the world as it's even possible to be. I'm not saying that Rome was right to persecute and scatter Jews in the late 1st Century CE. But that was just one empire among many, in one century among many. It does not establish the true narrative of when, where, and how Judaism and Christianity (respectively) appear in the course of human events. Nor does it justify anything those religions have done. In fact, right now, as we speak, Israel is committing genocide based on Judaic-fundamentalism's grossly entitled Master-Race-ism. So let's take a detailed look at how Christianity developed, how it spread, and what effects it has had on humanity. -- Our distant ancestors evolved from less developed humanoid species of apes.

We homo sapiens are "great apes". How is this relevant to the issues raised? After our distant ancestors began to develop language, it took hundreds of thousands of more years for "theism" to develop. As theism developed, it emerged only as polytheism. That's because humans are social animals. They created "gods" based on their own lived experiences. They all experienced life as part of a social drama. Thus, they imagined gods (super-powered and spooky people) the same way. Ironically, popular theism became less rational when people invented monotheism. Problems, quite frankly, should be expected with monotheism. As Dr Kara Cooney has pointed out, ... The entire reason men have invented various forms of monotheism was to leverage: * unilateral, * unquestionable, and *unaccountable power over others. In other words, monotheism's true purpose has always been: to justify a leader's thirst for authoritarian power. When societies worshipped many "gods", people could justify many points of view, for all matters which might concern government. One person's "god" might think, for example, that going to war is a bad idea. Another person's "god" might think it's a great idea. So if a ruler wants everyone to agree with whatever that ruler wants, they need to rule by 'the divine right of kings'. They also need to make sure there is only one God-opinion anyone cares about. And then they need to tell everyone that "one God" speaks through that ruler (or ruling class). Thus, they created monotheism. Immediately, this solved some problems for rulers. However, it created many problems for everyone else. It simply never works out well for lower-classes to find themselves living and dying at the pleasure of mad kings. Worse yet, a litany of ripple-effect consequences followed. When there were many "gods", nature's mix of beauty and ugly, along with nature's mix good and evil, could be explained by fallible gods. Some of those gods were mostly-good. Some of those gods were mostly-evil. All the gods meddled in the affairs of humanity while they bickered amongst each other; relative to their diverse personalities and dramas. Within that context, the existence of evil and the chaotic nature of our world made sense. Sometimes gods did nice things. Sometimes gods did mean things. And humans? Well, within this context, humans were always a mess. We never "fell" from perfection; because imperfect gods cannot make perfect creatures nor perfect worlds. Nor would they care to, even if they could. However, with the invention of monotheism, a logical and ethical paradox was created. Introducing, ... "The problem of evil". If there is only one god, and if that god is always perfectly benevolent and perfectly wise, ... and if he's also all knowing and all-powerful, then: The mere existence of evils ... disproves the existence of any such "god" (or "God"). How so?

It would be grossly unethical for a fully good and powerful BEING to even allow extreme and non-voluntary tragedies to exist for created beings.

In rational ethics, personal responsibility scales consistent with power. However much tragedy someone can prevent is the amount of tragedy they are responsible to prevent. However much suffering they can cure is the amount of suffering they are responsible to cure. However quickly they can provide rescue is the speed at which they are responsible to provide rescue. However, Christianity is a collective effort to turn ethics upside down. This is something all the different versions of Christianity have in common. In their view, ... As power scales UP, moral responsibility scales down. Thus, at the top of the cosmological hierarchy, the All-Powerful Mac Daddy Sky Wizard has: exactly zero moral responsibilities. Thus, anything good he ever eventually 'gets around to doing', is a "charity" and (worse yet) an "undeserved kindness". This is really what it means when those cults say "He can do no wrong". What they really mean is: He has no moral obligations; partly because "Might Makes Right", and also partly because no creatures deserve to be helped. Thus, there are no moral standards which apply to "God". Thus, they say there are no standards by which we can measure "God" against. Thus, there is no premise available to us by which we can say he "comes up short". Thus, they say he is "perfect"; because he's exempt from all scrutiny. Thus, any destructive concepts, attitudes, and actions "His people" commit to (on "His behalf") are also exempt from all scrutiny. Thus, "Christianity didn't do NOTHING wrong".

No True Christian Scotsman could ever do anything wrong "as" a Christian Scotsman. But in order to BUILD that sociopolitical BUBBLE of non-accountability, they'd need many centuries to keep refining their justifications. When Christianity first emerged, Christians were "henotheists"; which is a form of polytheism. Over the first few centuries, some Christians migrated into true "monotheism"; some as "unitarians", some as "modelists". Meanwhile, some migrated to pseudo-monotheism. These Christians created three gods but attempted to conceal those three gods behind a gaslighting guise of "one God in three persons". This mess of intentional nonsense was an ingenious mental technology. It was meant to make sheeple feel inadequate and unqualified to read and understand the texts they blindly accepted as "the word(s) of God". The Catholic clergy posed as people who are CLOSER to understanding that which cannot be grasped. With that special "ability", clergy could be revered by their religious-culture's stupefied sheep-class. Their sheep Ba'a'a'd in AWE(!) at the spiritual gifts imbued within the shepherd class. Only the special people could truly understand what was written in Christian Bibles. Upon that premise, Catholic clergy claimed Bibles were meant 'for their eyes only'. Upon that premise, clergy claimed to be "necessary" at the very top of a spiritual hierarchy within the domain of "man". According to them, they were uniquely qualified to glean the truths of God; and thus uniquely qualified to speak for "God". As a form of manufactured evidence, they had a special and God-given ability to almost-grasp the "Trinity". [Although, looking back, I do have to smirk a bit at the idea of "almost"-abilities] They also had a special and God-given ability to have ever FOUND the Trinity in the first place. According to those men, it was secretly encoded within "The Bible". It was hidden there by GOD; only for people with special spirit-vision to find. These were MIRACLES! This was advertised (by the clergy) as PROOF that the clergy-class ALONE was 'intended by GOD' to: * read Bibles, * understand Bibles, and thus * rule as 'agents of God' over the masses. This helped to establish and maintain exploitative power over sheeple. Meanwhile, rival factions of "Christianity" held a mix of common and divergent developments. All the rival factions of "Christianity" were struggling to 'hammer out' a theological narrative they could build successful sociopolitical power-structures with. Although, a better way of describing those power-structures would be "PSYOPs" and "mafias". All of them were mind-hacking cults. All of them were forms of organized criminal enterprise. All of them were selling fraudulent afterlife fire insurance. All of them were targeting vulnerable marks. All of them were perpetrating a Racketeering Scheme. A Mysterious Boss who "built this town" sent hired thugs (paid with I.O.Us for "treasures in Heaven") ... to offer "protection" FROM that mysterious BOSS, for everyone IN those towns. It's an "offer" which requires total surrender to those men "in his name".

And yet, it always came with the patient promise: "we can wait until later to discuss the money and monetarily-valuable personal resources we'll need as evidence of your true surrender to "His" authority". All of them were competing for power and money. All of them were competing for turf. None of them felt personally responsible for the tragedies they were causing in real people's lives. For example, Christianity invented Color-based racism. This idea flowed naturally from the idea that "all men were created in the image of God". How so? Because their appeal to "image" was superficial. It's the same sort of "image" narcissists concern themselves with. A big part of that "image" is aesthetic; but underneath that image is the more "meaningful" experience of how it makes people feel. Except for anyone who is literally blind, we all experience some euphoria when feel-good neurotransmitters flood our brain in response to visual stimuli. However, religious people wanted to think it's really a spiritual energy; generating a spiritual experience which flows from a primary and holy "Spirit".

That way of thinking is why they imagine "God" as being radiantly glowing, with pristine white robes, living in a golden city. They'd see something in the real world which triggers those sensations. In turn, they'd reason "this is divine". From there, they reasoned "this must be what God and heaven are like" Thus, it is largely an appeal to beauty ... as an expression of "that which is divine". It was also an appeal to the eye of the beholder as a God-given-lens. That, in turn, made white men think they were closer TO the "image of God"; and thus: of greater value. Hence, "under inspiration", working from the idea that people's VALUE comes from resembling the image of "God", they discovered more ways to be racists. Hence, "Manifest Destiny"; otherwise known as the holocaust of the Indian Nations. Not long after America eventually recovered from THOSE centuries of Christianity-brand, blood-drunken evils, ... Next, there was: the transatlantic slave trade. From there, followed: the need for abolition.

Note: Abolition only eventually happened because of persistent pockets of exposure to secular attitudes and ideals. In this way, the secular enlightenment gradually fostered moral progress in churches. However, Bibles are still chalked full of anti-ethics. There's only so much secular antibiotics can do ... for communities who swim in ideological sewage. Let's not forget, ... Christianity caused a NEED for an American Civil War, by creating a racist, slave-based economy in the first place.

From that, followed: the extra AMOUNTS of bloodshed Christianity ensured would transpire on both sides of that war, because of how they pushed opposing rhetoric about it being a holy war. Next came Hitler's Holocaust; created, again, by Christianity. Just like with all the other blood-baths Christianity causes, ... Progressive-Christianity, under the influence of SECULAR ideals, eventually decided "maybe this is a bad thing", and then helped lead the charge against it. Continuing that pattern, there was NEED for Civil Rights battles. This was (and still is) always necessitated because old-school Christians refuse to allow for social and moral progress. Although, of course, every time the old-school Christians finally LOSE any Civil Rights battle, or any all-out-war, ... they always re-invent their own history; so that they were on the same side as the secular humanists and progressive churches all along. Further examples: mutilating the genitalia of infant boys, pushing very unhealthy taboos about natural human sexuality, literally demonizing the mentally ill, legislating against LGBT rights, etc etc. Meanwhile, for most of their history, in most of the world, this was a White Man's enterprise. However, some bold entrepreneurs in black communities would eventually stake a claim to their share of that pie.

But first, The Con would need to be 'fleshed out' and then spread-wide. While various Christian factions diverged in their respective developments, ... they also kept a close eye on each other. During these first few crucial centuries of development, rival Christian factions discussed the merits and failings of ideas being developed by rival factions. Some new ideas seemed very useful to all the rival factions. For example: They all agreed to merge lore of the Genesis "serpent" with the lore of "Ha-Satan" (הַשָּׂטָן). Originally, the serpent in Genesis was a literal intelligent, walking, talking snake. [Note: I don't mean the story was meant to be taken as "this literally happened". By "literal", I only mean that this story was meant as a moral tale ... told from the perspective of someone watching a literal snake-person talking to Eve about a literal piece of fruit. It's like the story of "Little Red Riding Hood". When someone tells that story, the talking wolf is a literal talking wolf. The wolf doesn't represent something deeply meaningful about human psychology. It's just a wolf. If Jorden Peterson says otherwise, just ignore him. However, the story itself an an allegory for being cautious and clever whenever something doesn't seem quite right. We aren't supposed to assume it really happened.] Basically, in the Genesis story, it was a lizard-person. But that was about to change for all the Christian factions. It was about to become a "fallen angel" who was just pretending to be an intelligent reptile. How much sense does it make that "God" would curse all literal snakes to "crawl on their belly" and "eat dirt", if the snake in the story isn't really a snake? That would make even less sense than cursing all literal snakes for something one literal snake did. But Christians are hoping you won't look too closely nor think too deeply about their version of the story. It was also about to become a story that "really happened". They were also about to change the meaning and character of "ha satan", as part of that larger project of re-imagining foundational Hebrew lore. They changed the lore of "ha satan" ("the adversary"). They changed it FROM: any angel who is sent to be adversarial against men, on behalf of the gods TO: a specific and fallen angel who is adversarial against "God". That's when Christians created the character called "Satan"; who was adversarial to the "One God". In part, this was meant to resolve the paradox of evil. It's a paradox they accidentally caused, when they switched to a monotheistic theological premise. Now, "The One God" gets credit for all the good stuff. Meanwhile, his primary nemesis functions as a lesser and evil god; thus retroactively acquiring blame for how evil entered creation. Logically and ethically, this theology fails to truly account for the existence of evil. It also fails to account for natural disasters or why non-human animals get sick, suffer, and die. However, those failings are only visible for anyone equipped with adequate logical and ethical cognition. This is exactly why Christianity was engineered to inhibit people's ability to reason logically and ethically.

Irrational as it is, now we have a religious theme which includes a "lesser god" who gets blamed for igniting and carrying the torch of "evil" to humanity. Although, the various Christian factions did reserve some of that blame for all humans. That way, they could a.) irrationally shame humans and b.) emotionally blackmail humans ... into submission to their evolving authoritarian grift. Now we all have something to be "guilty" for. Thus, we now all have a moral debt that someone needs to pay; within the context of Christian-Narcissism's "transactional values" paradigm. ALL of this was foundational to all of the damage Christianity has DONE to humanity ever since. It's the foundational premise upon which they've stood, and upon which they've justified all the gross division, sabotage, and tragedy they've cursed humanity with for thousands of years. Just like their "God", they take false credit for the actually-GOOD things in our world.

Just like their "God", they also refuse to accept due blame for all the problems they cause.

For better or for worse, they eventually became more 'covert' in the means-by-which they slaughter children by the thousands every day. However, it's honestly sad that this counts as progress. Examples of how Christianity became more convert in how they slaughter the innocent: 1. Conservative evangelical churches spreading conspiracy theories about Climate Change as a "hoax". 2. Christian moderates enabling fundamentalists by a.) echoing fundamentalist rhetoric, b.) sheltering fundamentalists from scrutiny and accountability; by promoting social taboos against criticizing all expressions of Christianity. c.) doing P.R. charities to help bolster public perceptions about the larger-whole domain of "Christianity". 3. "Progressive" churches helping the moderates do P.R. work for the larger label of "Christianity" under-which the fundamentalists function. 4. Discouraging billions of people from more fully INVESTING into the global project to save our world.

5. Thus sabotaging human efforts to greatly reduce pollution. 6. Thus generating extra amounts of cancers and respiratory diseases. 7. Thus perpetually inflating how many infants, children (and adults) suffer and die every day from preventable diseases. 8. Undermining human rational faculties for billions of people. This results in less rational masses, which results in less rational government, which results in less rational engagement with problem-solving, which sabotages entire societies' ability to solve problems, which results in perpetuating societal problems which generate every form of un-wellness. 9. Cornering the market of highly profitable "non-profit" charitable corporations; exploiting both the tax payers and the very people they provide services to. And that includes hospitals. 10. Spreading 'ways of thinking' which are antithetical to human flourishing. Examples: a.) anti-LGBT rhetoric, b.) anti-atheist rhetoric (which, by extension, functions as anti-humanist, anti-compassion, and anti-rationality rhetoric), c.) promoting slave-minded-ness, fear-mongering, and "othering"; as a means of promoting authoritarianism. This results in people supporting political leaders who are each a "cult personality" and a "strong man"; to violently protect them from imaginary threats posed by unfairly demonized people-groups. d.) promoting the idea that all lives are disposable; 'lest they surrender' and 'prove useful' to a conceptualized perfect kingdom, e.) sexism. This was badly disguised under the laughable premise that the Creator Of The Universe designed women to be weaker and less capable than men; having created women to submissively serve men. etc.. Meanwhile, today, the same as it always was, 11.
Although, Christianity does sometimes take credit for the problems they say are "meant for a (mysterious) greater good". Examples: Infiltrating, hijacking, and then legislatively weaponizing entire governments against differently-Christian, differently-religious, and non-religious citizens; especially against women and minorities. These are very real problems. The entire fundamentalist claim of "for a greater good" is merely a thought-stopping gimmick. It's a gimmick which further isolates their rabble of loosely networked mafias from every being held to the same ethical standards that nearly everyone else in secular societies is striving towards.