Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Sexuality vs Spirituality: How Religion Profits from the War It Creates Within Us

When you are raised your entire life to think about nothing as much as your religion, your salvation, and your God, becoming an atheist does not mean you suddenly no longer think of such thinks anymore. On the contrary, once the conditioning has formatted our minds to work a certain way, over the course of several decades, it is only possible for us to start looking at the horse from the opposite end.

In doing so, one can see that the war between sexuality and spirituality, which religion claims is so natural to us all, is actually one that religion alone is responsible for both framing and fostering, much to its sole benefit.

When St. Augustine and St Aquinas mercilessly attacked women as perhaps the most evil harlots God could have ever vomited forth into the world, their sentiments were not simply the byproduct of their time and place in history, as Catholics often like to suggest. Rather, these men were no doubt influenced in their loathing of women by many cultural ingredients indeed, but there is no doubt that religion gave their holy rage the lingering scent of divinity.

Of course, Catholic women all deny this, or ignore it, or do any sort of mental acrobats necessary for minimizing it, even as many claim that Islam is so oppressive toward women, which it so often and clearly is. But for such women, Catholicism today is a kinder and gentler form of subservience to an old boys club that still gets to tell women their place, which is certainly not in the role of a Catholic priest.  

Does the fact that women cannot become priests ever suggest to such ardent Catholic women that there is something chauvinistic about their religion? Not for a second! They willfully accept that, while God made men and women "equal," he also made them separate. That such an idea proved only to be a tool to divide the races, is completely ignored by such women. And the the fact that they ignore the lessons of history, especially of slavery, is why so many men feel it is their godly duty to hold women in such contempt in the first place.

Yet all of these differences, that too many Catholic women are only too willing to ignore or make allowances for with any number of theological excuses, is at the very heart of the war between sexuality and spirituality. And that is a war that not only grows exclusively out of religion, but is one who's fires religion is forever stoking for it's own financial gain. Indeed, religion sells salvation by selling people on a fear of sex.

There are Catholics the world over, for example, who think the act of fellatio is something that God would gladly throw them into a lake of fire for all eternity, just for even thinking about it. Never mind that we are far less than mere amebas to such a God, and extremely poorly designed and admittedly flawed amebas at that.  Such a fact is completely inconsequential.

Sex is the greatest gift in the world, a learned Catholic will tell you (in accord with their programming), but it must be used in an extremely specific way, for extremely specific circumstances, and always with God in mind. That such a mental ménage à trois is part of the spiritual reality of religion leaves one to wonder how anyone can really ever enjoy sex, at least when they are religiously inclined, since they are conditioned to always fear that they may be having too much fun in the processes. And that if they are, their burning passions may only lead them to burn in hell. 

Such ideas only make sense, not intuitively, but after a lifetime of trying to make sense out of what makes no sense at all. That a person is tasked with having to sort out such rubbish, over the course of an entire lifetime no less, makes all organized religion operate like the Church of Scientology, with the more you put into it, the more one is taught to expect they can get out of it in return. And by "get out of it," I simply mean that they "believe" they will only ever grow in greater understanding of God's views and rules about proper sexual conduct, even though they know fully well it will not in any way come close to the Karma Sutra. 


Saturday, July 22, 2017

When Everyone Is Guilty of Everything, No One is Guility of Anything

Consider how the actions we engage in as human beings today, often have some harmful effect, however small it maybe, on someone else on the planet.

If you use a cell phone, you're contributing to child labor in the mines of the Congo for cobalt. If you drive a car, you're contributing to America's dependence on oil and thus its wars.

No matter how attenuated the connection by myriad other things two points may be, there is always a connection, and often there is more than one - a lot more.

But all we have to do is find a way of either denying any such connections exist, or that the good of what we do outweighs the negative impact we may have, however unintentionally and ignorant we may be of the ultimate effects of either one.

This, then, requires us to actually exercise a God-like hubris in our understanding of how things are connected. And we do this, even though we admit our brains, and even our computers to date, have no ability to map such an infinity.

So, either we deny such connections or we decide when we are responsible for those negative impacts and when we are not.  That it takes a God like ego to presume such an arbitrary and wholly subjective distinction is simply ignored.

Maybe that is the original sin. Our inability to admit our actual guilt, for the things we unintentionally contribute to and may benefit from, is siphoned out through the narrative of religion that forgives us our sins.

So that when everyone is guilty of everything, no one is guilty of anything. 

The Castle & The Prison Are Often the Same Thing

A castle is a fortification designed to keep and enemy out, while a prison is a fortification designed to keep an enemy in. But often, and maybe even always, they are basically the same thing. And both are like our beliefs.

 In a sense, everyone is the king of their own castle of ideas, but religion takes this to a higher level by encouraging a person to trust their imagination when it tells them they are doing it, not for themself, but for the glory of God.

By believing that their "beliefs" are necessary to survive, have meaning, or even control their own appetites and desires, people are encouraged to become ever more dependent upon the God-drug that all organized religions push. And like the man selling heroin, so religion sells holiness, and both trigger the same release of endorphins in the brain that make a person feel warmly loved.

The only difference is that one of these drugs is illegal and the other is legal. And it's not only legal, it's even encouraged as absolutely necessary, to save oneself from the eternal fires of a Merciful Loving God. A God, mind you, who slaughtered his own son (using humanity as the all too willing knife) like Abraham, in order to forgive it for being stained with original sin - a stain He just happened to withhold from the soul of his own son, so that son could grow up to be the kind of a man God hoped humanity would eventually kill.
And to prove that God should never doubt His faith in man's miserable sinful nature, we were only too happy to oblige.

This narrative of a God forgiving his sinful creation through the sin of them murdering his own son, is used to convince people to doubt everything but those things that affirm this narrative. And by doing so, their dependence upon it to being not just a "belief," but the very bedrock of all discerning wisdom, knowledge, and truth, only grows. And the more this dependence grows, the more it is applauded.

 To those believers, their "beliefs" are what are most important, more than anything else in the universe; even more than they are.

To die defending those beliefs (i.e. their "castle") in this temporary universe - which would be smaller than an atom and only amount to a mere millisecond to an "infinite" and "eternal" God - is something that they believe is the highest virtue and honor they can perform. And they believe this not only because it is the surest way to go directly to heaven, without having to pass purgatory, but to show their gratitude to a God who was generous enough to have created the entire universe -even with all of its difficulties, cruelties, and death - specifically for them.

This castle can also feel exactly like a prison to the "believer," however, since it tends to be seen not as a castle at all, but a cross. Religion teaches the "believer" to not only conflate "truth" with a "belief," but to identify their own suffering with the suffering of their Messiah. Such a perspective means all of the suffering added to the world from Crusades and Inquisitions to pedophile priests and the Church's attempts to hide it, all somehow served to redeem humanity in the same way Christ's suffering was alleged to. Hence, if all of the Church's victims had simply offered up their suffering to God, whether from torture or rape, think of all of the people that could've gotten out of Purgatory?!

In this way, Christianity encourages a victimization mentality. Since it is the job of the "believer" to evangelize the world, their view of Jesus as the "victim" of a world that rejected God, leads them to see themselves as Jesus (i.e., "rejected by the world") when anyone challenges the "authenticity" and "infallibility" of their claims. And this is especially the case whenever anyone challenges their claims to "Biblical inerrancy," of either the Bible itself or their interpretation of it.

In either situation, whether seen as a castle or a prison, the point is that both are built out of fear, and the desperate need to protect oneself, from either an enemy without or within. And since religion is also relied upon to keep the darker angels of our being imprisoned within ourselves, chained by our "hope" for eternal life, it is a prison that some preach simply because they rely on it to protect the world from themselves.

But when they discover the power of invisibility that their positions grant them as "spiritual leaders," that is, once they discover that playing the lamb is the easiest way for the wolf to hunt the sheep, it becomes only too easy for them to prey upon victims. Perhaps even with the "belief" that they are actually helping them in some way, as hard as that may be to imagine.

The problem is that religious beliefs do not suppress our fearful and darker side, even though it appears to give some people "hope" through the power of denial of our own mortality, it simply re-channels our darker side, by convincing us that when we are doing our worst toward each other, we are being our best for God.


Monday, July 17, 2017

Killing Gays for God

There are a number of Christians (and Muslims) who think homosexuals should be killed. After all, homosexuality is why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, still too many of them will insist.

I think the vast majority of both (at least I certainly hope the vast majority of both) do not agree with this. But those that do, claim to be "moral" and virtuous, even as they commit murder to avenge an "all powerful God" for having to watch two people of the same gender having sex. Talk about being overly sensitive!

Say hello to moral relativism! In this way, such Christians are operating under the "belief" that murder, at least for the right reasons, is not as evil as "sex," even though committing murder is an act of death and sex is an act of life. As such, they allow a Commandment to be overruled by a footnote. 

But even among those who disagree with the idea that homosexuals are monstrous pedophiles that need to be killed, there are those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, and a very grave sin at that. And all because it's written in a book that boasts of the countless virtues and graces that come to those who are willing to commit genocide for God.

But this latter group takes no responsibility for the mass murdering of homosexuals, like the murders in an Orlando Night Club in 2016, where a "true believer" decided to follow in God's footsteps by turning a gay bar into Sodom & Gomorrah.

They do not believe that their own belief that homosexuality is a sin, is incorrect, they just think the people who killed them went to far. And unnecessarily so, since if homosexuals don't square their souls with God before they die, they'll be cast into a lake of fire anyway.

If you think about it, the second type of person seems even far more cruel than the first, they just have more patience.

But this is like The KKK or Aryans saying their own view that whites are superior to blacks,  which they claim is Bible based, does not mean they necessarily condone lynching, slavery, or genocide. For them, their premises constitute undeniable immutable "truth,"  even if that truth is the butterfly that is always the cause of the hurricane of fear and hatred that leads unmistakably to oppression and murder.

They are fine with treating a person like an inferior being for their entire life, but lynching them, they would argue, is for God to do, over an open flame, for eternity. 

If The Bible Were True, We Wouldn't Be fighting Over It

I was recently reading William Faulkner and Ralph Waldo Emerson, and realized that people still read their words not just because of how they said things with words, but the very ideas those words conveyed. Those ideas were "truths" that anyone who reads them can appreciate, even if on different levels and in different ways.

I was also reading The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and the writings of Seneca, and was moved by the precision and clarity of truth which they seemed to effortlessly convey in their prose. This is the same with Shakespeare and countless others, from poets to philosophers and from scientists to shamans.

Yet no one reads their words and thinks such "truths" must be properly understood, lest humanity fall into chaos, even though they are so unambiguous in their writings and the Bible is so opaque.

Do we argue of the Canterbury Tales or Aesop's Fables, or over the "true" meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the importance of the Code of Hammurabi?

But let that "book" be ancient and as rife with contradiction as it is filled with rape and murder, gods and demons, and we will be willing to kill and to die for it by the millions; and all to defend morality and secure our place in heaven. 

It is not that we are "flawed" that prevents everyone from seeing the "truth" of the Bible, or even being able to agree about what those "truths" actually are and are not, but that we are foolish enough to believe we are "flawed" in the first place, and that we are all in desperate need to be cured; that we will die, but someone will answer our prayers that we can live forever.

The Bible was too important a book, God must have reasoned, for it to be burdened by the need for clarity and an economy of language.

Maybe it's time for a Newer Testament, only this time without any human sacrifice.

The first commandment should be, "No one should die 'defending' the ideas in this book."

And the only sin is telling people what they must believe, and how they must live.


Sunday, July 16, 2017

Abraham the Psychopath

 I am not comforted by the thought that Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac, when I heard he'd been listening to a voice inside his head that, at the last second, told him to go kill an animal instead.

Most serial killers start off by killing animals.

An Email to God

Yo God! What up!? 

Christians are an ironic bunch in America.

The more I study the strange little world you have growing in the mole spores in your basement, the more I marvel at the behavior of that species who proclaims to be humble while insisting they are not only made special, and in your image, but that the entire universe  was made specifically for them.

They tend to believe that everything is a kind of propaganda designed to lead them to doubt that their "beliefs" are necessarily "true,"  but they never doubt, for they feel they are not allowed (or are simply not able) to doubt, that what they call "true" is simply a "belief" that isn't true, but is simply the mother of all other propaganda.

They even feel they must believe such a conflation or wind up in a place they call "hell," which they also imagine is like the ovens of Auschwitz, that place I told you about earlier, during what many of them refer to as "the Second World War".

Some of them even think that their desire to see people put into this "hell" is the very thing that makes them worthy of heaven.

These have usually been the same ones who have killed people who refuse to accept their "belief" that you can be sent to hell for breaking their God's commandments, especially the Sixth One, "thou shalt not kill."

And while they all mutually kill each other, they unanimously proclaim to only ever be "defending" their beliefs to be "true," even though the only "evidence" they offer to support such a claim is a book written by authors who boast about committing numerous acts of genocide, and always with your help and for your glory.

In fact, the guy who built those ovens at Auschwitz was inspired by the second edition to proclaim another genocide, but this time agaisnt the people of the "religious faith" who were said to have written the first edition, and for pretty much the same reasons.   
They claim their "soul" has made them smarter than the animals, even though there is a high correlation between those who proclaim themselves to be religious and being as racist as a bunch of fucking monkeys.

Some of their "countries" have done "studies" that say there is a positive relationship between the two, while studies in the Low Countries, like Netherlands and Belgium, say there is a negative relationship between the two, so anyone on any side of any argument about the relationship can just refer to the study that proves they are right and the other person is wrong.

Not enough of them have developed the ability to see that their fear of death has lead them to create religious "belief" systems that have not caused racism, but have caused them to subsequently believe in economic systems that are used to facilitate racism, which some use religion to promote and others use to combat, and most have historically used almost always in that order.

Some of them think that religion does not necessarily cause racism - even though quests for racial purity have almost always been carried out in the name of "spiritual purity"-  but that racism is a political tool, a false taxonomy conveniently invented by science acting like a religion of materialism, and fed intravenously into society through economics, for maximizing profitability in peace, and blind murderous rage in war.


 ...On the flip side!


Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Aliens Would Treat Us As Bad As God

If an extraterrestrial alien species landed on Earth and encountered humanity, why would we not think that they would treat humanity the same way humanity has treated every other living species on the planet?

And in so doing, would they not be treating us exactly as God did, in the Old Testament?

And since we are "made in the image and likeness of God," no wonder what God did to different peoples and eventually humanity overall in the Old Testament looks so much like what we have all been doing to each other ever since.

In fact, if Christians or Muslims encountered an advanced alien species of far greater intelligence than our own (since we all so often assume that all other species on Earth are far less intelligent than ourselves), would they not, at the first sign that such aliens would either refuse to accept or threaten to reform the entirety of their religious beliefs, treat such an advanced species no differently from the chickens, deer, or insect, or even the lowly China-men, Mexican, or African Slave, or even a sinner or heretic?  

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The World In A Nut Shell

The US Financier and Railroad businessman Jay Gould, once said he could "hire half of the working class to kill the other half." And if you look around, it doesn't seem so far fetched, if you think about it.

Basically, half of the people in the world are waking up to the reality that war is ultimately always the culmination of artificially created means of division, from race and creed to economic class and country, and the other half which is willing to go to war to prove such divisions are not only real but necessary.

It's as if such a taxonomy of people, one that ranks everyone's own race above that of every other, can only be overcome by other lesser races by learning the culture and the language (i.e. the "beliefs")  of the race of the "chosen" people. It is to assume, in other words, that everyone else is born with a defect (i.e. original sin), but can be redeemed by their assimilation and conformity to that culture (i.e. they are converted).

In this way, our idea of "race" apes the way religion leads us to think about our souls.

And that's why half the people are waking up to the reality that an "infinite God" is a concept so abstract it can literally mean anything and nothing at all, and the other half which is willing to murder the first half to prove that their own version of that "infinite God," along with their own interpretation of that God's "immutable moral laws," is the one "true" version that everyone else must obey (everyone except themselves, of course). 


Sex & Murder: The Morality of the Christian Mind

Two basic activities that both humans and all other species engage in are sex and murder. Virtually all species are forced to eat some other living thing to survive (although a "merciful" omnipotent God could've obviously created a world where this was completely unnecessary) and nearly all species rely on sex, for both pleasure itself and to produce offspring.

Yet these two activities are rationalized within the Christian mind in two very different ways. Even though murder is one of the "sins" explicitly forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments, "sex" in many forms is thought by many Christians to be expressly forbidden, even though the only mention of it in the Ten Commandments is limited specifically to adultery.(Christians have gotten around this rule concerning adultery, by the way, by simply implementing polygamy, like the Mormons and the Old Testament.)

A Christian may tell you, for example, that "murder is always wrong," but will then find any number of ways to defend not only the genocides committed in the Old Testament for God, but even the flood sent by God to kill a humanity that God had decided was just too sinful to go on enjoying the "gift of life." But if two people of the same sex want to get married or even if a young man and woman want to "live together" prior to marriage (what Christians used to call "living in sin"), they are treated as if they are engaging in an act far worse than murder.

Many of the same Christians who also try to explain away the many murders and other atrocities committed for God or by God will often find ways of defending war as sometimes morally justified, and perhaps even required. In fact, Hannah Arendt even pointed out how morality has been used to make it seem that NOT murdering the enemy during war is itself an immoral act.

Both St. Augustin and St. Ambrose, for that matter, have put forward "just war theories" about when engaging in the murdering of fellow human beings is (almost) a perfectly moral thing to do. Then there is of course Jesus, who's murder God needed to forgive humanity it's disobedience, rather than simply "turning the other cheek," as God commands everyone else to do. (This is presumably because God does not have "cheeks.")

 In addition to this, many such Christians, who so often seem to think that "sex" of various kinds may all be worse or as bad as "murder,"  will defend the act of hunting animals as a perfectly normal thing to do. After all, all animals tend to hunt other animals, and humans, by being at the top of the food chain, are simply doing what is natural when we engage in hunting animals as well, even if we do so simply because we wish to hang their head on the wall in our den. ( Imagine if other animals did the same thing. In fact, the only human beings that do this with human heads are serial killers.)

Yet the same Christians who defend hunting and murdering other animals (and sometimes even other human beings) as perfectly "moral," and often for no other reason than that it is perfectly "natural," argue that many different kinds of sex, and especially homosexual sex, are perfectly "immoral" because they are completely "unnatural," even though thousands of other animals species have all been found to engage in the practice, including that species that is closest to our own, the bonobo.  

Hence, for some Christians, like Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, some kinds of "murder" are perfectly natural, because animals engage in it, but some kinds of "sex" are unnatural, no matter how many different species of animals engage in it. But this tells us less about whether some kinds of "sex" are unnatural and far more about how some Christians think what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom poses a greater threat to humanity than a war, genocide, or a God who threatens to kill us all and send us to eternal damnation.

And in fact, many such Christians would prefer to see World War III before they would ever attend a same sex marriage. Yet they think the problems with the world are not them, but anyone who supports the latter and opposes the former.

Welcome to the morality of a Christian mind.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

The Trouble with the Belief that God is always "Good"

The trouble with the belief that God is always "good," as so many Christians and Muslims believe, is that it means that anything God does or has ever done, is simply "good" by definition, because God did it, even if it would be the greatest evil of all when lesser versions of the same thing are done by or for the devil. 

So when the Hebrews of the Old Testament brag about committing genocide for God, it's necessarily interpreted as "good," at least in comparison to whatever practice evoked God's righteous call for genocide anyway. But if we say that all of the genocide committed in the 20th century alone was committed by or for the devil, we consider genocide to be the greatest evil of all, even though most of the genocides that occurred in the 20th century were, in many instances, related to Christianity. 

When child sacrifice is carried out for Satan worship, Christians call it an abomination, even though Christians worship a God they believe told Abraham to sacrifice his own son to a God who would later decide His anger with the disobedience of His imperfect children could only be assuaged through the sacrifice of his own "perfect"son instead.

Point this out to a Christian, for example, and they will find any number of ways of explaining away such non sequiturs, or simply decide they are not worth loosing one's faith over.

When Armageddon is fought in the Book of Revelations, as the Devil rises to power in the world, it is thought to be a horrible thing, but when God destroys everyone and everything on the planet with a flood, however, it's glorious! The difference, Christians and Muslims alike will assure us, is that the former is evil, which is obvious to eve a ten year old, while the latter is "good." And because God's murderous or genocidal actions  are always "good," no matter how "evil" they may appear to the untrained eye, they need to be explained and understood using a highly developed system of theology. Apparently only "believers" have the secret decoder ring that allows them to tell the difference.

By extension, such "beliefs" only ever lead the most ardent of believers to the inescapable conclusion that any act performed in the service of a God who can do no wrong, could therefore never be wrong either, no matter how much it appears to everyone else to be nothing but.

This is like the United States always supporting the Middle East Peace process, because no matter what the U.S. does - even if it starts a war - it is always considered to be "supporting" the process. It's just that America, like God, often works in mysterious ways, but should always be trusted nevertheless to have a plan.

We also see this in claims by the Republican party to be "pro-Life," and oppose abortion, when in fact the Republican party would never be stupid enough to ever allow abortion to be made illegal, because if they did, all those Catholics would find some other single issue to vote for. And that single issue may be one the Democrats have a stronghold on.

And on an individual level, it also means that a person NEVER has to apologize for anything, since every act such a "true believer" engages in, even those unrelated to their religious beliefs per se, are always "good" a priori. And if any injury or insult is suffered, it is purely the fault of the incorrect interpretation of the person who, either out of naivete or over sensitivity or both, allowed them self to feel injured or insulted.

Those who beat God's disloyal servants are always doing something "good," in other words, while those who beat people for money or the devil, etc, etc, are always doing something "bad." And it is the sole responsibility of the person being beaten to know the difference. 


Thursday, July 6, 2017

What If No One Had Ever Heard of Jesus?

What if no one had ever heard of Jesus? What if something happened and, over time, the story of Jesus Christ, along with all reference to him and anything to do with Christianity, was eventually and entirely lost from all human memory, and not a single shred of evidence existed anywhere about him, or the Christian God?

This is the problem with the idea that we must "believe" in a story of a God-man, who died for our sins and rose again. It is also the problem with all such "stories" that any religion has to offer. It never considers what happens if humanity on the whole exercises as much amnesia about Jesus as it does about everything else.  Think about it.

If ALL of the stories of the Bible were suddenly wiped from both human memory and from our entire universe, then there would obviously be no way for anyone to "believe" in a man, or a story, or even our fall and redemption, even though they needed to "believe" such a story to save themselves from an eternal damnation.

What, then, would that mean, or tell us, about the story itself?

At the very least, it would strongly suggest just how purely HUMAN such stories really are. For if the story of Jesus, and the entire Bible, had all come directly from God, and  were necessary (or even just very useful) tools for working out our salvation, then shouldn't God have found a way to ensure that each person on the planet was born with such information already pre-installed in their minds when they were born?

After all, isn't that the exact same way religion wants us to believe that we are all born with the stain of "original sin" pre-installed in our soul?

Why, in other words, does God chose to create us with the curse of sin preinstalled but not the cure, with the stain of original sin but not with pre-knowledge of the story of God, Christ, or even the necessary foreknowledge that we must all join a particular church or religion to be "saved"?

Instead, according to the experts in religion, God assures we are each born with the cancer of original sin, but rather than being born with also the means of completely overcoming such a condition, we are born with only a capacity to struggle against it over the course of our entire lives. We are not even born with any knowledge of any of this, by the way, but are forced to accept the word of a Church and a religion that claims to speak "the word of God."

But what kind of "loving father" chooses to create children in this way, and all for the purpose of trying to use their broken condition to foster ever more dependence upon the "father" who decided to create them as such moral invalids in the first place? Why would God create servants that he wants to become increasing MORE DEPENDENT upon him, when the object of every other parent on the planet is to raise children who are LESS DEPENDENT upon their parents and more INDEPENDENT upon themselves? Hell, isn't foster this kind of "dependence" on a higher institution exactly what Conservatives 'Christian" Republicans complain about??  

 That God chooses NOT to assure that each of us is born with the CORRECT interpretation of the Christian story, along with the ability for EACH OF US to have an INFALLIBLE understanding of his will and love and moral laws, and so on, can only lead one to conclude that the entire story is a ruse, or that God is more devilish than the devil himself. 

Indeed, why did God want us all to necessarily depend upon a Church made up of only fallible men, that has not only lead to fragmentation and disagreement about  God and the bible, which Christians have slaughtered each other over for centuries, but to corruption, greed, child rape, torture, war, crusades, etc etc etc?

How the HELL is this anything close to a "perfect plan"?

That God wants us ALL to understand the story of his (alleged) son, Jesus Christ, while at the same time wanting us to simply accept that, even though all of the death, disease, murder, evil, etc in the world (and even in his Holy Church) makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, it's all part of his "perfect plan."

This is like trusting Charles Manson when he says his "plan" has a larger purpose, and will all work out in the end.

What's even more troubling is that such questions never seem to occur to Christians, or never cause those Christians to whom they do occur to ever question whether their "beliefs" and their "religion" are truly divine or purely man made charlatanism?

 And worse, if you ever ask a Christian such questions directly, they NEVER GIVE YOU AN ANSWER, or they give you an answer that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Or they tell you to talk to someone else who might be able to answer such a question.

But when you ask them why such a question doesn't causes them to ever reconsider their OWN beliefs, they quite honestly explain it is because they simply do not choose to think about it. Hence, they are admitting that they ONLY use their intellect to support "beliefs" they may hold for largely, if not exclusively, emotional reasons.

The fact that God chose to create each of us with "original sin" but with out the cure, even though the most powerful being imaginable could clearly have chosen to do it the other way around, should tell us a lot about the benevolence of the manufacturer. Would anyone buy Microsoft Windows, or any other product or service, if it was sold to us in the same condition? I can just hear Bill Gates telling everyone that Windows Works great, but we've prepackaged it with viruses, the cures for which you must buy from us as well.

So, back to our question - what if no one had ever heard of Jesus Christ, and there were no bibles or reference of him at all in human memory?

Do we really KNOW that, say, 10,000 years from now, or even 100,000 years from now, or a million or more years from now (if humans last that long) that the story of Jesus will survive, and even in its present form (which is what the most conservative priests of all see as the reason for their very existence)? Really? Even though the story has changed so much over just the last 2000 years? Ever heard of the "telephone game?"

What's really interesting about this idea, of course, is that humanity has been around for roughly 300,000 years, while even Judaism has only been around for roughly 4000 years, give or take.

So not only did none of the people who lived in the 298,000 years prior to Christ ever hear of the Jesus story, but we have never heard of any of the stories about God or Gods that any of 98% of humanity may have believed in since the beginning of human existence.

Why God took 300,000 years to evolve the human mind to the point God "believed" humanity would be ready to believe in a story about how a man who humans once killed was actually a God (a God who came to be murdered so he could rise from the dead to forgive his dutiful assassins), while allowing all the people who had lived for 300,000 years or more prior to this episode, to simply wallow around in limbo or fry like a hotdog in purgatory, is a question only a Christian can ignore. 

So, if no one had ever heard of Christ, would God have to come back to earth and kill himself all over again for our salvation? Does God have to go to every "earth" in every universe in our potential multiverse ( and there could be an infinite number of universes in the multiverse) and die the same way in all of them?

Would he have to do so for every species he decided to give a soul, and in every universe they inhabit, on every single planet they occupy? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply get rid of the soul altogether, rather than having to put himself thru all of this, again and again, for creatures he knows simply can't appreciate his efforts, in part because he made them with such limited and fallible capacities that they can't even fathom who or what he is? 

But instead of all of that, God wants us to offer up our sufferings to him, in unity with the suffering of Christ, so we can all see how truly wonderful He is. And the Christian can't understand for the life of them, why such an idea only evokes in the minds of atheists, images of Ted Bundy.

Christianity teaches people to believe that the best in life comes only after you die.