Skip to main content

On Truth

Religions all claim that their "beliefs" are "the truth," and the people who "believe" these claims never once care to consider how often a "belief" is so often different from, and even the opposite of, the meaning of the word "truth."

But despite the fact that "truth" and "beliefs" are so often direct opposites, this does not give a single person who knows there is a difference a moments pause in their willingness to conflate one for the other. Ironically, they are the FIRST to scream and shout at the top of their lungs, if ever they suspect anyone else is daring to do the same thing, mind you; but that never seems to bother them.

If the Christian gets up and says their "beliefs" about sex, sexuality, gender, marriage, Jesus, original sin, heaven & hell, God, the Bible, the Devil, and so on, are all "the truth," they take offense to anyone who is awake enough to point out that "beliefs" are not necessarily "truths." In fact, most people who have dared to point this out in the past, end up like Jesus did when he dared to try and point out the difference to the Sanhedrin.

Hence, Christianity is a religion that most "believers" follow, not by actually striving to "be like Christ," but by "believing" they are "being like Christ" by treating anyone who dares to point out that their Christian "beliefs" are NOT in fact "infallible truths," the exact same way the Sanhedrin treated Christ.

 This is especially problematic when you consider that there is NO WAY to EVER actually prove the claims offered by Christians that their "beliefs" are, in fact, undeniable "infallible truth."

And since Christians CANNOT prove their claim, they then begin to argue from the usefulness of "believing" it is true.

They claim that it makes old people feel better to believe it is true, and makes people more altruistic than they otherwise might be, since people are such selfish bastards by nature, according to Christians. But not only are such claims not necessarily true, they also conveniently side step the whole question of DOES TRUTH MATTER? 

Christians will argue that miracles prove that God is real, and that their "beliefs" - which they only worship like a Golden calf - are therefore "true." But are they?

If people actually get better from a disease because they "believe," does that necessarily mean the "beliefs" must therefore be true? Actually, no, not at all.

The placebo effect, for example, has been studied extensively, and shows how the mere power of a person's "beliefs" can alter a person physiologically. But that does NOT mean that there is a God, or a personal Jesus somewhere, that is actually listening to a person's prayers, and then intervening "supernaturally" (if selectively) to "cure" whatever illness they may have. It may only mean that the person was able to effect themselves though those beliefs.

Now, it is true that this is "miraculous" in some respects, but to claim that it therefore proves there is a God, or that the "beliefs" must therefore be true, is to DENY that it could be possible that the "cure" was simply the result of the "belief" itself, not from an outside force that was "believed in."

The question then, is DOES TRUTH MATTER? Does it matter whether we KNOW if the belief itself caused the cure, or whether the belief caused God to intervene and cure? The latter situation is obviously far, far more troubling to consider, even though the Christian finds it more comforting. For if the latter is true, than God is deciding to intervene, extremely infrequently, even though He could do so more often if He wished.
Talk about cruel beyond belief! You have a better chance of winning the lottery 100 times in a row than you do at getting God to cure you.

What kind of a doctor chooses NOT to heal the majority of patients in his hospital, even though he has the medicine to cure them all, simply because he concludes that they do not sufficiently "believe" he can do it?

In either case, the "truth" of the "belief" remains in question, especially since we have so much more evidence that it is simply the "belief" that contributes to helping people, NOT the existence of a God that intervenes to help them as a reward for having the belief. Otherwise, "belief" in God is just like having OnStar services, only you have to win the lottery for them to actually answer a call from a stranded customer. And most of the time, it seems no one's even monitoring the phones anyway.

 And anyone who claims that their "beliefs" are the "truth," is therefore clearly lying.And ANY Christian who willingly sells their "beliefs" as "the truth" is simply engaging in a deception. They just refuse to ask themselves - who is the father of lies?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part II

"But God by nature must love Himself supremely, above all else." Fr. Emmet Carter   This is part  two of a look at an article written about the "restorative and medicinal" properties of punishment, as espoused by Fr. Emmett Carter (https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/).  Ideas of this sort in Christianity go back to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas - two saints who saw the suffering of Christ as sure fire evidence that God needed humans to suffer to balance the cosmic scales of his love for us. Sure, he could've come up with a better game, or made better humans, but its apparently the suffering he really enjoys seeing. Carter's essay raises countless questions, especially about the true nature of God's blood lust, but lets stick to just four simpler ones. The first question deals with the idea of "free will." According to Christians, God designed us with the ability to freely choose to obey or offend h

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part I

If the Holy Bible proves anything at all, it proves that the Christian God has a blood-lust like no other God in history. From Abraham to Jesus to the end times to eternal hell, the Christian God loves suffering even more than, or at least as much as, said God loves Himself. And if everything from the genocides in the Old Testament and God killing everyone on the planet with a flood, to Jesus being tortured and murdered (rather than the devil, who is the guilty one) and the fiery end of the world followed by the never ending fires of hell, are not enough to convince you that Christianity is really an addiction to violence masquerading as "love," just consider the psychotic rantings of a Catholic priest trying to convince his faithful flock that murder and mutilation - which he calls "punishment" -  are proof of just how much his "God" is pure love.  In an article published on https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/,