Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Retconning in a Post Passion

We discussed the failure of the Passion, and as in other aspects of Christianity, it is self-contradicting without the aid of photographs showing a bunch of Jewish community leaders getting together to discuss making up a new religion, or notarized affidavits of said rabbis swearing they were intending to deceive. If we posit an all-knowing God, who expects His religion to gain followers a thousand years later in Maine, on the strength of faith in Jesus, the story that Jesus "suffered in the Middle East around 33 A.D." is irrelevant to the revealed truth of the said Jesus being the son of the said God, and/or responsible for a person's salvation. In the Passion, we see how a faith supposedly dependent on and marketed as a faith--as a belief in an unproven thing--doesn't require, and is not assisted by, purported physical proofs that "He suffered, too." Similarly to any of Jesus' other miracles, or any of God's other punishments, the promise that physical proofs happened, and could have and did influence many peoples' decisions to be saved before, contradicts the divinity of the story found now, where proof isn't necessary but proof happened and it was divine that such punishments or miracles saved people before now.

Is a person with a certain level of sinfulness in 32 A.D.--say, a mere 99.8% certainty that Jesus is God, as opposed to someone with 100% certainty--better than a person with the exact same levels of sinfulness in 34 A.D.? Let's assume that the person in 27-32 A.D. sees Jesus walk on water, and is convinced, while the person in the late 30s A.D. has no such opportunity, and is not convinced, even though he would have been totally convinced, and was of the exact same worth, as the earlier convincee who was tipped over the edge of belief by watching Him walk on water.

No problem--it wasn't God's intention to save the later sinner. But if we have any sense of decency or fairness (perhaps difficult for a council of drafting rabbis to understand?), the salvation of the identical person because he had the chance to see water-walking, and the perpetual torture of the person who had unfortunately timed diarrhea and missed the water walking, or was just born two thousand year later, smacks of indecency. It also conflicts with the religion itself, since apparently needing to witness water walking and to gain the required mental impression of Christ's awesomeness is, for some successful adherents, an acceptable requirement, while others only have the option of appreciating Christ's awesomeness without viewing the healing of the sick.

Like the retconning of Judaism into a non-genetic religion acceptable for pacifying future meat, we see in the Gospels many indications of its lack of a unifying theme, an end goal, in its narrative. Given the lack of geographical and cultural awareness of its non-deity creators, it was initially undecided whether the story of the rabbi whom all goyim were supposed to love and worship and obey merited such meekness and deference due to his stupendous actions or faith alone. Since God knows what was supposed to (will) happen, and God doesn't need to try things out to see if they'll work (which the Jews were already good at after the whole garden/redo, flood/redo thing), these strange narrative breaks where Jesus is to be revered due to feats of strength or magic are indicative not of a flaw in some hypothetical god for failure to properly design how His salvation system is going to work, but of an intergenerational creation committee adapting its product as they went, resulting in something with varying types of salvation supposedly tried out by the immortal and omniscient. The finalized product, belief alone, is almost too good, beyond the wildest dreams of anyone trying to sell a religion to a population who thought daily ritual was a necessary component of any religion. It offers more comprehensive customer opportunities, and was ultimately chosen (sic) after killing a few million then-redundant followers of Jesus who--sort of like anti-rape feminists in the European 1990s--had no idea how redundant they were going to be to people who really can't know anything like a belief that things can be better.

No comments:

Post a Comment