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?
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
Post a Comment