An article posted on CatholicExchange. com (at https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/) claims that gods punishment is just, restorative, and medicinal. But is it?
And if there is no God, then what do "believers" who are convinced their illusion of such a thing is real therefore think when they are told that "punishment is just, restorative, and medicinal"? If there is no God, in other words, then who is it that is doling out the "punishments" that they think are so "just, restorative, and medicinal"? Answer: those doling out their "God's" punishments are those who "believe" their God wants, indeed requires them, to dole out such punishments in his divine stead.
The exerts illustrate what can be likened to a sense of hypnosis for those who choose to "believe" their fantasy of "God" is more "true" and real than reality itself. Consider the following passage.
"The essence of mortal sin is that we choose something other than God, forbidden to us here and now, and prefer it to God. This is an act of love. We place a higher value on a creature than we do on God. We love that creature more. But God by nature must love Himself supremely, above all else. (How is this not the bald worship of pure Narcissism?) As a result, when we raise a creature above God in our scale of values, we have ceased to be Godlike. (What the hell does that even mean? So to be Godlike should we also worship ourselves above all else? And if no "God" exists at all, than it would be impossible to compare something that does exist to something that is pure fantasy.) We ourselves have resisted the current of true love.(How the hell can anyone have "true love" for, or receive "true love" from, a "God" that has yet to be proven as anything other than pure fantasy?) It is not necessary for God to “withdraw.” (Since said 'God" does not exist, the withdrawal being referred to here is to call the loss of the faith in that fantasy a form of punishment for failing to continue to drink the coolaid being sold by this Catholic charlatan to feather his own nest.) We ourselves have destroyed our true supernatural charity or love since we no longer love Him as He loves Himself, namely, in a supreme fashion that can brook no rival." (Love him as He loves Himself?! Again, how in the hell is this NOT a call to pure Narcissism disquised as covert altruism?) The Christian, by this standard, is lured into believing that, only by loving their idea of "God" are they able to, and thus "worthy" of, love(ing) themselves. And because they love themselves because they love their illusory ideas of their brand of God, nothing can be higher than their "God," that is, their own ideals. For them, "hell" comes from having to admit, or even consider, that their own brands of beliefs are no less human than all those other brands of beliefs that they (the Christian) sees as merely mortal balderdash. He further points out "The secret, then, of our truest, deepest, only perfect love is in being Godlike ( to love oursevels above all else). And as the second great commandment is like unto the first, it is also the standard, the norm, and the criterion of our love for our fellow men." (Wait, how the hell can we love ourselves above all else AND love our fellow men above ourselves? And what about our fellow women?) And how do Christians love their fellow man? "Let us take as an example the problem of punishment. The Christian abhors the concept of pain for pain’s sake (actually, this is untrue. Eternal hell is simply pain for pain's sake, for it has nothing at all to do with justice in anyway, shape, or form) but a look at the world tells him that the surest guarantee of future pain may be its avoidance here and now. The “spoiled” child, overshielded against pain, may be the one who will ultimately suffer the most. The child must be taught that misbehavior, even carelessness, will bring with it pain and suffering. It is the lesson of life, and to have a child pass through the formative period without learning that lesson thoroughly would be a grievous harm. It is the only concrete realization he can get of the terrible effects of sin... (since the ulimate "effect" of sin is to be thrown into a lake of fire, apparently this priest wants parents to teach their children "God's love" by setting their children on fire. Brilliant!) But punishment that is part of a truly Christian education not only is not harmful but positively beneficial. (Just ask all of those women who were burned as witches in Salem. I am sure they'll agree.) The condition is, however, that it be truly in accordance with Christian principles (that is, that God tortures people for forever for no reason other than that He can, because to be a god is to inflict pain for the sake of pain alone.) This involves the general background of love that we have just described. (Yes, torturing the objects of your affections is always the best way to win their heart.) It also involves the proper use of punishment itself. That proper use we would sum up as follows: To be as Godlike as possible in administering punishment. When God punishes there are always several factors involved. The first and perhaps most fundamental of these is that the punishment is always objective, that is, based entirely upon the guilt of the offender." (But since we are all taught to simply "believe" that we are all "born sinners," the "guilt of the offender is therefore NEVER OBJECTIVE, but purely SUBJECTIVE, even as the "believer" conflates the latter for the former and pretends they are doing no such thing.) These are the ideas that "believers" are hypnotized with. It's what they eat and drink at their churches on Sunday. It is what leads "believers" to burn witches for God.
Comments
Post a Comment