The catholic priest teaches children to assume they are murderers of Christ simply by joining the human race. They have not a single shred of evidence to support this charge, mind you, but they want children to believe they are born guilty anyway. At least part of their motivation was that getting each child to believe such a thing provides them with a job selling the snake-oil that can be used to "cure" such a sin-virus. Although the priest swears the vaccine he administers through the syringe of their holy “sacraments” is made miraculously by God himself, the sinful nature of the child requires not only circumcision, but a battery of other sacraments as well, and a weekly dose of chemo-therapy in the form of flesh and blood disguised as bread wine. There is also a course of mandatory confessions to the priest who revels in the fantasy that, by hearing the sins of others, they are anything but a voyeur. The point of these confessions, according to the priest, is to alleviate the plaque buildup of sins on one's soul. But why is the child accounted guilty of the sin of Adam, and thus the redemptive murder of Christ, just for joining the human race, while the priest is not assumed to be guilty of raping children, at least spiritually and emotionally, by joining a gang in which not only did other gang members actually rape children, but the institution for whom those rapists worked both protected and aided and abetted those rapists? And if ever a priest is offended by the thought that they should be assumed to be a child rapist for joining a gang that harbors , protects, and facilitates the actions of child rapists, they should ask themselves why they were not similarly offended when they were taught as children themselves that they were responsible for the murder a man-god.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment