Christ didn’t author a faith of selfishness. Christ didn’t author a faith based on the principle of “love” being the determining factor in the supernatural; a faith based on the “love” presented by “the ‘California’ Christian” denomination is a love calloused to the grind by opportunity and tainted by the presupposition that ‘even though I’m not supposed to, I can do all things through Christ’ even though such a perspective is not one found by Biblical analysis. One can only conclude that the people do not read the book. If the people do not read the book, how seriously then do they take their God? If the people do not read the book, how then can they each congruently agree with each one concerning the words of the very book they each lay hold of? This greatly matters as it speaks to the mischaracterizing of sects and groups and the misshaping of all - not to suggest that it would be entirely impossible for God, as absolute ruler indisputably, rather my suggestion would be that it may speak as an answer itself to the aged and jaded argument that the Old Testament God was an angry God. This still would make Jesus the absolute manifestation of God but would be a complete step out of character for this same divine being. The thought should line itself to render a near impassable test, but this is selfish.It would cease to be faith if certainty were the defining or even a casually dependent element. There is no requirement on the part of any mortal that would morally compel a sinless being to confirm any state of existence. Requiring such would be foolish with certainty abounding but all the while wasted. Requiring that another prove what has already been rejected with objections lacking fortitude while hyper sensitive egos mushroom up to the ceiling, filling the whole open canopy and scoff at any of however many inklings are produced or rendered; it is not exciting to see such a display, it is sad.
Falling out of lockstep with the words of the founder of the faith, Christians began to involve their minds with the ambitions of the Greeks and Romans with some successes and some great tragedies. Ambitions far superseded the availability of the element of the that which has been given in accounts. Accounts like the finger of the creator of all there is writing the essential set of Commandments for mankind to adopt and practice. A fairly straight forward story until some brilliant wizard throws an extra rock in there and the truth has become a story being told, it has lost some value as the changed portion may affect the entire story. Where did it all go wrong? Was Christ not clear? Have the factors that determine truth been renegotiated without the consent of the King? What does this have to do with the selfishness in the faith Christ didn’t author?
The top “Christian” “churches” have effectively eliminated the need for a Christ. If the follower of Christ can do the same things the Christ can do it would eliminate the necessity for the Christ and that means they are actually selling self help (or not) as the message of “God”. I think it should be noted that there is validity to the argument that at some point there will be a need for the choice to be made by the individual to better their “self”, the actualization of the “I” not a realization of the “I Am”. This is a distinction not inherent to most faiths or systems of beliefs; some core elements of particular faiths do resonate the “hollowing out” of the disagreement discovered by proper use of discourse, a phenomenon which should usually indicate the forbidding of knowledge or the “shaming” of knowing a thing. Compound these together.
Effectively, Christianity at a fundamental level should be stripped of any opinion which does not hold up to that which is socially aware. This is an argument to offer an opportunity for those with an impending desire to act in accordance with other minds. A new chapter for a dialect of a set of beliefs. This is done on the grounds of a necessity for the individual to be separated from the beliefs they may hold; the old school tactic here is to suggest the Christian does not believe in the absolute authority of the God they claim, and follow this with personal teasing while not actually addressing the presented argument. The advantage in separating the individual from the belief is it offers the individual a “releasing” from the responsibility of actively thinking critically, and even assigning to them a place in a group identity which places them in a frame such as the “victim of systematic oppression” to expedite data harvesting for potential weaponizing.
I find myself far more critical of those voices who are proactively discouraging Christians (or anyone for that matter) from trusting the faithfulness of God, the author of their faith. It appears as though the critics have infiltrated the church. I am not suggesting that the layman ought not offer up questions when befuzzlement has creeped into the mind, remember the claim made in the Bible that God is not the author of confusion. I could single out the televangelists as equally as hurtful to the progress the Christian Church - the Christian faith - must make over the next two decades but it would not accurately describe the relationships between the average individual and either. In short, there is amassed on the internet many a critique of the phenomenon of the televangelist that my going into it here would do a disservice to the Christian faith.
The fundamentalist position is one usually built around the holy text - the reason I examine the Qu’ran and the I-ching - and is from there polluted. Not all fundamentalist positions are true or reasonable. Being a fundamentalist does not automate the responsibility of knowing the facts of the matter to those who may or may not know the fact of the matter. Do we need a Christ?
Thank you for reading.