|
Morality is that which sustains life. | ||
| Christian Morality | ||
|
HOME The Basics Definitions What Sin Is Morality Applied Thomas Aquinas Fundamentalism Spirit World Creationism List |
Paul Rewrote Christianity The theology of Tyranny
The ethic of tyranny is based on pleasing the persons who control power. The persons who control power are only different from everyone else where there is tyranny. Defining morality in conflict with objective reality is tyranny. It ceates Nazism, not salvation. Paul's theology is based on control, power and submission. Christ's theology is based on learning and understanding (John 4:22)(Luke 12:57).Paul's followers reduce purposes to accepting Christ—a totally passive and situational theology. But Christ said his followers must put his words into practice (Luke 6:46, 47), and on judgement day deeds alone would determine who gets saved (Mat 25:31-46). The deeds result from a path which overcomes sin (Mat 25:31-46) creating a concern for other persons. There is no path in Paul's theology. Paul describes a relationship to God apart from a relationship to other persons. Paul rewrote Christianity omitting all of the critical truths which Christ produced, while he taught by example arrogance, domination, elitism, and strife. His version is then used by the world to sanctify its corruptions. Christ's name is used for justification, while Paul's version of religion sanctifies the world's sin. Christ taught human responsibilities. Once human responsibilities exist, corrupters are corrupt. So they use Paul's theology to erase all human responsibilities. Then they sin around in our faces with mockeries and destructivity and call it Christianity. Paul claimed that Christ told him to preach (Acts 22:6, 26:12). But there was no claim that Christ told him "what" to preach, that the result would be infallible truth or that the rest of us would be bound by it forever after. Since Paul lied about everything else, he would have lied about Christ telling him to preach. (See Outside Link) Paul's logic was extremely tortured (claiming flesh creates law and sin, and God could not forgive without a blood offering) and in conflict with Christ's teaching (that overcoming sin is the path to life), so Paul's theology did not originate with God or Christ. Paul's theology was extremely technical—"straining out gnats and swallowing camels" (Mat 23:24). The gnat of "justification" replaced good deeds. Even if Paul's technicalities were true, they were God's concern, not man's, and they were no excuse for omitting "the weightier matters of law, justice and mercy..." (Mat 23:23), as Paul's followers assert. It is common for the followers of Paul to say humans cannot do anything to overcome sin, and that's why sin had to be taken care of on the cross. A second rationale is that even if humans could overcome sin, it would not justify their earlier sinfulness, and that's why murdering Christ had to occur for justification. Using technicalities such as "justification" for theology says no one could get saved before Christ's time. Based on Paul's theology, Isaiah or Jeremiah would not have gotten saved. By contrast, Christ abhorred such technicalities (Mat 15:3) and described responsibilities which would be the same always and everywhere. Paul used a flimsy logic for all of his points demonstrating that human logic was his basis, while his logic was never adequate, and endless muddle was the result.Christ accomplished an extremely demanding task in teaching how to overcome sin. The entire context of his life and teaching are integrated into a complex whole which defines the subject. For Paul to rewrite the subject is to destroy the message. Other writers passed on human knowledge. Paul tried to replace God. The followers of Paul are not concerned about overcoming sin, because sin was supposedly taken care of through atonement on the cross. They defy Christ's teaching putting Paul above Christ. Paul said, through much theological detail, that there is no sin beyond a problem in God's head (though his followers say it differently). Supposedly, atonement changed God and solved the problem. His theological rationale was to say that sin is only possible because of flesh (which God created)(Rom 7:5,6). God then accused people of sin, which is his own fault (Rom 7:7-9). But crucifying Christ caused God to change his mind and no longer accuse people of sin (Rom 5:9,10). Specifically, Paul said sin made humans "enemies" of God's, but Christ's death removed God's "wrath" and "reconciled" humans to him (Rom 5:9,10). Paul absolutized his attack on law, which not only negated the archaic trivia of Mosaic law but also the Ten Commandments. Christ said not the smallest letter of the law is to be done away with (Mat 5-18).What made Paul an authority over Christianity? His repenting is not a basis for authority. If he had some knowledge to share, that does not make him any more of an authority than anyone else; and his knowledge consisted of incoherence. When he is quoted, half sentences and phrases are used, because he produced few coherent sentences. He based his authority on being blessed by God, as indicated by his success at something. Guess what. Hitler and other murders also claimed to be blessed by God as indicated by their success. God used Assyrians and Babylonians to punish Jeruselem, which was success without virtue. It demonstrates that success at something is not a valid basis for authority, not to mention the questions raised about Paul's success at anything. There are very few points which Paul made which have any significance. He did superficial moralizing of the "good advice" type. Millions of persons do the same thing, and it is of no relevance, because it is not anything everyone does not already know. And the superficialities are so vague that they are used for infinite synthesis which is imposed with Paul's supposed authority. Paul's most significant corruption was to erase the significance of morality and most of Christ's teaching through a mystery concept called "atonement." Atonement is a corruption which should not have entered Christianity. (see below) He also served the purpose of creating a figurehead, as Freud and Einstein do. The world needs figureheads to attribute source material to, so authorities can pretend that they are not originating it. If they originated it, they would have to explain the logic of it.As a figurehead, Paul is quoted dozens of times for every time Christ is quoted once. The quotes do not refer to anything significant, which is what makes Paul so easy to quote. As a figurehead, Paul detracts from the important message which Christ produced. There is not one element of anything Christ taught to be found in Paul's words. Christ and Paul literally described two different subjects. Christ described how to overcome sin; Paul described how to be a good Pharisee. (Pharisee means religious authority of the time, which would not be any different from Christian ones in terms of corrupting religion. The purpose in attacking Pharisees was not to degrade Jews; Christ was a practicing Jew.) Paul literally picked up where he left off in the Jewish religion—making himself an authority over a religion while contributing nothing but corruption to it. How could he have done otherwise, when that mentality was the only thing he ever knew? The primary means of corrupting Christianity is by producing a substitute, which is what Paul did. He created a substitute for Christ's purpose of overcoming sin. What does Paul say about sin? Very little beyond trivia. He mentions a few personal weaknesses, and they supposedly come from flesh, nature or law. He does not put sin into the context of corruption in the world creating an environment of sin and influences which are sinful. Paul says things several different ways by using corrective statements which reverse other points. His reversals do not remove the rest of his theology, and they are ignored except for rationalization purposes.Addendum Atonement is applied to mean that sin was taken care of on the cross; and on that basis, moral responsibilities are shunned by the followers of Paul. Atonement implies that the sin of crucifying Christ was a good deed. Atonement was developed as a ritual of sacrificing animals on an altar. Doing so was supposed to be a good deed. The blood and smoke were supposed to be an offering to God. Eventually, God said through the prophets that he does not want the blood and smoke, and other methods of worship should be used (Ps 40:7)(Jer 7:22). Therefore, the concept of atonement should not have been applied to Christ's crucifixion. The reason is because God said it is not an appropriate method of worship. Notice that blood offerings do not please God. Yet atonement theology says that God was appeased or pleased by Christ's crucifixion, because it was supposedly atonement. If atonement were the purpose of Christ's crucifixion, he would have had to tell the apostles that God was angry at them, but if they killed him, God would be appeased. Since the authorities killed Christ, atonement would have had to overcome the sin of the authorities. But they did not repent. So overcoming their sin was not the purpose. If someone put a dent in your car, would you want them to burn a carcass for forgiveness? Why would God be any crazier than you are? Here are some quotes indicating that burning carcasses was not what God preferred, though he did tolerate it as a starting point in evolving higher standards. (Isaiah 1:11) (Hosea 6:6) (Psalm 50:8-15) (Mat 9:13, 12:7) (Mark 12:33) Anyone can be quoted, from Paul to Hitler, when it is nothing more than something to be looked at in relation to all other evidence. The problem is that we are being told throughout Christianity that Paul's words are fact regardless of contradictions to all other evidence, because they are in the Bible. Humans decided what to put in the Bible, and they used sixty six books to represent satan's number, because they were working for satan instead of God. They called themselves father, when Christ said not to, for the same reason. For more detailed criticisms of Paul's theology see Counter-Argument to Paul's Theology Law, Flesh and Sin Paul in Organized Religions Justification Fundamentalism What Christ Said About Atonement |
The Truth is the Opposite All frauds imply that truth is located in some dark pit, and only they can interpet it for everyone else. This includes Einstein, Paul, the historical philosophers, and most scientists. Truth is the same for everyone, and the evidence is equally available to everyone. Evaluating the objective evidence is the only valid starting point for rational promotion of truth. To quote Paul as the arbitator of truth for Christians is a contempt for rationality and everything Christ taught. Christ said we are supposed to acquire knowledge and understanding (John 4:22)(Luke 12:57). Knowledge and understanding are acquired from the evidence of objective reality. Material life was created for the purpose of showing the evidence for the objective realities of morality as the means of ovecoming sin. Rationalizing the implications of a fraud is the diabolical opposite of acquiring knowledge and understanding through evaluation of objective evidence. Paul's theology is promoted in total isolation from all other realities including Christ's teaching and objective evidence. The promoters of Paul's theology will not acknowledge anything Christ said no matter how it is shown to prove them wrong. Their hate for Christ's words demonstrate that their purpose is to replace his teaching with fraud which rationalizes their corruptions. Until Paul's rationalizers relate their views to everything Christ taught in a logical manner, it's not Christianity. Until they relate it to the evidence of life, as Christ did, it is not truth. Paul is not the source of anything valid or worth knowing. After getting saved by Paul's criteria, the sin never ends. Instead it is rationalized. Rationalized sin destroys the perpetrators. Why get saved by such a criteria, when it destroys the supposed saved persons? Why define salvation in such a quirky manner that it promotes sin instead of overcomes it? Pauline Argument on Path to Life |