I am forever fascinated by how our "beliefs" about something, trick us into forever overlooking some of what more rational perspectives would no doubt deem it's most obvious flaws.
Original sin, you may recall, is the idea that every single person who is born is stained with a flaw, according to the Bible. (And since it is in this "Bible," this idea is both obvious and unquestionably true - obviously.) This "original sin" is said to have occurred when first Eve, then Adam, ate of the forbidden fruit of "knowledge."
There are two components to this original sin, which infects our soul at birth, of which Mary was spared the one but given the other - hence she was "immaculately conceived" - while Christ was born without the toxin of either one. God, who withheld these two components partially from Mary and entirely from Christ, choose not to grant the rest of humanity any such similar dispensation. Rather, God choose instead, according to Christianity, to forgive them the flaws that all naturally and unavoidably emanate from being born with such an affliction, by getting them to murder Him, after He dared to identify Himself as God.
Christ came into the world, in fact, to "save" humanity from the "stain of original sin." That means Jesus had come to die for us, to reopen the gates of heaven and save souls from eternal damnation.
This is incredibly ironic when you consider that Jesus was a God who taught people to "turn the other cheek," even while his own presence on earth to preach such an idea, was clearly not one his own Father could abide.
But when Pilate washes his hands of Jesus, so Christianity teaches its children, we all became guilty of the torture and murder of Jesus Christ, the "son" of God - the same God who, rather than turn the other cheek, could only be appeased by having those who had wronged Him in the first place, slaughter his own son; even as they claimed to be doing it in defense of that same "Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name."
If I had my druthers, I'd prefer to have my record reflect a charge of petty larceny over a murder rap any day.
But Christians ignore the sanity and the morality of such an original sin upgrade.
Yet how can anyone seriously trust, let alone "believe in," the sanity of such a "being," indeed even the moral compass of such a being, that leverages one charged with the former into committing the latter for His his own appeasement.
If such a story is true, this only proves that God is an Aztec.
Original sin, you may recall, is the idea that every single person who is born is stained with a flaw, according to the Bible. (And since it is in this "Bible," this idea is both obvious and unquestionably true - obviously.) This "original sin" is said to have occurred when first Eve, then Adam, ate of the forbidden fruit of "knowledge."
There are two components to this original sin, which infects our soul at birth, of which Mary was spared the one but given the other - hence she was "immaculately conceived" - while Christ was born without the toxin of either one. God, who withheld these two components partially from Mary and entirely from Christ, choose not to grant the rest of humanity any such similar dispensation. Rather, God choose instead, according to Christianity, to forgive them the flaws that all naturally and unavoidably emanate from being born with such an affliction, by getting them to murder Him, after He dared to identify Himself as God.
Christ came into the world, in fact, to "save" humanity from the "stain of original sin." That means Jesus had come to die for us, to reopen the gates of heaven and save souls from eternal damnation.
This is incredibly ironic when you consider that Jesus was a God who taught people to "turn the other cheek," even while his own presence on earth to preach such an idea, was clearly not one his own Father could abide.
But when Pilate washes his hands of Jesus, so Christianity teaches its children, we all became guilty of the torture and murder of Jesus Christ, the "son" of God - the same God who, rather than turn the other cheek, could only be appeased by having those who had wronged Him in the first place, slaughter his own son; even as they claimed to be doing it in defense of that same "Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name."
If I had my druthers, I'd prefer to have my record reflect a charge of petty larceny over a murder rap any day.
But Christians ignore the sanity and the morality of such an original sin upgrade.
Yet how can anyone seriously trust, let alone "believe in," the sanity of such a "being," indeed even the moral compass of such a being, that leverages one charged with the former into committing the latter for His his own appeasement.
If such a story is true, this only proves that God is an Aztec.
Comments
Post a Comment