THE DOCTRINE OF "RELIGION IS A HOSPITAL FOR SINNERS" BLAMES THE PATIENT
Blaming the patient without being able to prove that it is their fault and without being able to prove religion really has supernatural powers to heal the evil side of people is proof that religion is an oppressive social construct.
Religious wisdom says that if you go to God as if he were
a shopkeeper there will be no overnight transformation. “God does not sell you
the fruit of love and compassion but the seeds.” This is what any religion, scam
or otherwise, would say. But it means by the time you have tested it may be too
late – you may now be corrupted or a fanatical terrorist. Religion gives you the
doctrines as if it wants you to feel, “I will believe God works in this religion
if he does this and that.” That is you dictating to God. If religion did not
give desperate people the illusion that it works well enough it would not have
any followers. Just because God is not regular with the help does not mean the
believers are not dictating to him for they say a little is enough. A dictator
does not necessarily ask for a lot. Part of the dictation is expecting God to
sometimes act.
Everybody knows that no religion will be saved from being evil or feeding evil
by its faith or its good principles. Some people seem to talk as if recognising
and having good principles is enough to start the inevitable process of
improving if gains are modest like a sort of ethical or supernatural placebo.
Principles make people think of them as placeboes though they are anything but.
Is it confidence that a human being we are taking about or confidence that a
religious human person can change? If it is the latter then what we have is
plainly sectarian. How could sectarianism help form a hospital?
The "we are the way to treat sinners and heal them" is can be an excuse for the
religion refusing to take any responsibility for the harm done. It can be an
excuse for treating the guilty as if their bad behaviour does not matter. It can
be a smoke-screen to cover up the fact that the religion does not fix human
nature. Religion says we are all sinners but though they do not intend this to
mean it has no power to cure sinners it could be taken as saying exactly that!
If the religion is man-made then it sounds ridiculous for it to claim to be a
hospital for the immoral. It needs to say it channels a higher power that
overcomes evil. "We are here to be nice to sinners for we can treat them with
our prayers or sacraments or rites" is exactly what a bad or man-made religion
with no supernatural power to help people would say. That is why the claim needs
investigation. A religion and its people would generally need to be very special
before it can say it's a hospital! And the religions all say the change from evil
person to good person is gradual and a life's work. It is what you tell people
to keep them dangling on over false hope. The gradual progression excuse serves
to disguise the fact that religion's treatments do not really work. What would
you think of a mathematics teacher who says his teenage students don't know
their tables but that this is fine for they have all their lives to learn them?
A real hospital cures many people fast. A real hospital does not blame the
patient for lack of co-operation all the time when a treatment doesn't work.
Lets compare religion with a real hospital.
Hospital
For the sick
Religion
For the sinner and the saint (though the implication of hospital for sinners is
that saints are not welcome!)
Hospital
Naturalistic - does not use magical or supernatural treatments
Religion
Uses supernatural treatments - because such treatments are based on arguments
from ignorance (I don't know how this worked therefore it uses supernatural
power) every religion contradicts the others on how to treat.
Hospital
Not judgemental
Religion
Says that if you suffer everlasting torment in Hell, or fail to receive and
enjoy God's blessings it is your own fault. Nobody has the right to accuse
people of misusing their responsibility unless there is proof that God really
cares or that Hell exists. These teachings function like threats.
Hospital
Has a cautious self-correcting system for diagnosing the illness - cautious
optimism
Religion
Invents sins, exaggerates sins and makes people feel they have offended God when
those people should spend all their energy worrying about the people they have
hurt. Does not care if it slanders people by saying they have offended God -
that is slander if there is no God. Is uncautious optimism for the
treatments for sin such as sacraments just work.
Hospital
Provides treatments that have been tested and continually tries to learn from
mistakes and make improvements
Religion
Gives dubious remedies such as prayer and sacraments. Makes no effort to see if
they actually help - some people thinking they help them does not mean they help
- and ignores the fact that these treatments for sin fail miserably in most
circumstances. Goes as far as to say that it is prayer that brings
medicine into being so it is really prayer that is behind all good medicine.
Hospital
Is there to help you
Religion
Is there to help you but not for you but for God. You are a means to an end.
Jesus said we must love God with every fibre of our being. He did not say we are
to love anybody else like that - only God alone.
Hospital
Has a code of ethics - ethics cares only about people
Religion
Has a moral code supposedly revealed by a God who has done all the thinking so
if we question him we stupidly think we are smarter than him! Cares about
religious morality more than people.
Hospital
Is pro-science
Religion
Is pro-science except where science challenges religion. It likes to say that
you must take a wait and see attitude and science will be proven wrong. That is
a fundamentally anti-science view and denies that it is up to science not
religion to decide when a wait and see is appropriate. A religion that cherry
picks science has no regard for science at all. It feigns its reverence for
science.
So? The treatment religion gives
is based on lies and hypocrisy and denigration of good. Religious people do not
love good as it is but as they want it to be. Religion is not a hospital for
sinners any more than an outfit that claims to cure cancer with ice cream would
be a hospital.
Religion likes to make out that if it does evil, that it is not to blame and
individual members are. It takes no responsibility and yet it will not say that
demons are good but only individual demons are bad. The only excuse it can come
up for to bolster its alleged innocence is that it is a hospital for sinners. A
non-judgemental person would prefer to blame the religious system of doctrine
rather than the person only.
If religion were a purely moral system, it could perhaps be excused if members
do evil. Religion is easily mistaken for a purely moral system but it is not. It
is a mixture of religious practices, theology and morality.
When a religion is being created, it first has to look at the people it wants to
target. The religion must be devised after looking at human nature. Religion
looks at the people and sees that they give birth and marry and work and die. It
sees that nobody is totally good. It sees how people try to be really good and
work hard at it during their lifetime with perhaps only moderate improvement.
And everybody backslides. Life alone is the hospital for "bad" people.
We are all in the same boat. Thus religion has no business claiming that it is a
hospital for sinners for not only is it untrue but it is condescending. A
religion that does not really help and lies that it does help is to blame if its
members go astray. Lies enable people to develop the courage to be bad.
A real hospital for sinners starts with the evidence that it cures people of
antisocial and evil and godless traits. Instead of that, religion argues, "Human
nature is contradictory and not all good and therefore we can say we can help."
This is really saying that people are sinners anyway so the religion can claim
to be a hospital and people stay sinful that is because they are human. It is
not logical. Religion tries to slot in with how people are while pretending to
be able to change them when it knows fine well it is not. Suppose all people
have the flu all the time. You can't create a hospital for the flu for there is
no point! Your calling it a hospital is pretending it is what it is not.
An ad hominem argument is against the person whose arguments you dislike or want
to discredit. It is an attack on the person making the argument not the
argument. An ad hominem is not ad hominem when it is religion we are talking
about. The true religion will not be merely correct in what it says and
convincing. It will show its power in the lives of believers. If Christianity is
extremely persuasive but nobody shows signs that God is supernaturally helping
them to become better human beings and children of God then the religion is
decisively refuted. It is a case where something seems to be almost proven and
then the case collapses. The badness in Christians refutes Christianity. The
more bad Christians there are the stronger the refutation becomes. The more a
religion claims the power to raise people above human weakness and wickedness
the worse it is if the people are no better than normal. If they are worse then
there is no more to be said.
Any religion or group can claim to be therapy for badness. Because of that
claim, a religion refuses to take responsibility when a member does something
that is very bad even according to the religion's books. The religion should if
it is merely man-made. Man's religious system has no intrinsic power to help
another person become good which will mean that the religion does not help or it
hinders. You may as well not have it at all.
Man is not intrinsically good and has a nasty side that is intrinsic though it
differs from person to person. A man-made religion then has an intrinsic violent
streak. Religion claims to be divine not human so that it may cover it up and
blind people to it.
A religion that wants to hide the fact that it has no special power to heal
human corruption and malice will still claim to be a hospital for sinners. This
puts the blame on the bad person in the religion and not the religion. In fact
if this blaming does not make the bad person worse, then that is down to luck.
The person has avoided decline in spite of the religion.
Blaming the sinful patient could mean the person is being accused of not
responding to the care given by the people in the religion.
This could mean the person is being accused of not responding to the care given
by God's power and grace through the religion.
It will mean one or both of them.
The religion then is harmful. It accuses falsely. It sucks you into
getting involved.