CHRISTIANITY IS ANTI-HUMAN FOR IT SAYS AN INFINITE GHOST ALONE MATTERS

Like all ideologies, Christianity does not agree with itself. We meet people who act in its name who seem normal and good but the fact is that there are many who put us off and we don't like their kindness for there is something about it that is not about us but about God.

A wife would be disturbed if her husband told her a great local spirit mattered more to him than her and that he was with her for it was the spirit's will.  The Christian view that the spirit that matters is God is no better.  We are brainwashed not be upset about it.  We should be upset.

Altruism is the doctrine that you should do all you can for others but not for your own sake and do all you can to avoid taking any pleasure in what you do. That is the only way to be sure altruism really is altruism. Christianity advocates altruism towards God alone. The Church has the habit of advocating altruism towards others but that is a popular use of the word. Technically, altruism in the true and accurate sense is to be directed towards God alone.
 
Altruism is dehumanising when it is directed at other people but more so when it is directed at a God who may not exist!
 
Here are some quotations from religions that believe the only thing that counts is loving God. They tell us that God alone should be loved and we should love others just to please him meaning it is just him that is the real concern not them.
 
A Catholic prayer that the Church wants recited regularly is, “Oh my God, because you are so good, I love you with all my heart, and for your sake, I love my neighbour as myself” (page 66, A Catechism of Christian Doctrine).

This here is very clear. The neighbour or yourself is not loved for any reason but for the love of God. You love yourself and your neighbour for the sake of God alone and not your sake or that of your neighbour. This is not love in the usual sense of the word. People’s failure to see this monstrous doctrine has contributed to the deceptions of Christianity being foisted on so many in the world.
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him” (2093). “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God” (1822). Real charity means that we would prefer to lose all things and even our lives rather than do what is forbidden by him (page 183, The Student’s Catholic Doctrine) – which is another way of saying God alone counts. It is obvious that Catholic charity will wreck people with guilt. If you see sin as something that God who is infinitely good must hate infinitely you will end up doing everything you do to avoid guilt and yet you won’t succeed. If this doesn’t happen then you must question the depth of your faith.
 
Here is an excerpt from Radio Replies, Volume 2, Question 905, “Mere kindness to human beings, whether for the love of those human beings, or for the sake of self-esteem, is profitless; and in any case based upon the error that man and not God is an adequate motive for doing good. Such kindness, therefore, should not be called “charity” but rather “philanthropy”, which means love of man for humanity’s sake; or “humanitarianism,” the cult of humanity.”
 
And in Volume 3 question 1001, “You advocate kindness to others without any thought of the love of God: That is straight out rebellion, because God commands us to love each other for His sake…It would be selfish to work for one’s own happiness, knowing that God’s glory would result. But it is not selfish to work for God’s glory, knowing that one’s own happiness will result.”
 
There’s more. “We love God for Himself, not for ourselves”.
 
Logically then we read this reply to the question of how you can be expected to love your neighbour when you don’t even like him: “When Christianity bids you love your neighbour whether you like him or not, it really means that you must let your love of God overflow to your neighbour. You really see, not your neighbour, but God; and without diverting your attention from God, you let your love of Him extend to all whom He thought worth making and loving” (Question 1000).
 
St Alphonsus De Liguori in The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection stated that anybody who leaves family and everything that is dear to him for Jesus and who carries esteem for himself is carrying the most dangerous attachment of them all. Though the man has crucified himself he is not entitled to praise himself and is to desire to be slandered and maltreated and treated with contempt (page 401). And also that any attachment even to what is good is bad for we should be attached only to God (page 350) and that we should be willing to die for God and not to satisfy our own feelings or to get esteem from others (page 456). He wrote a prayer asking Jesus for help to put away all love for others so that Jesus alone would be loved (page 447). To have an attachment to creatures instead of being committed entirely to God (page 438, The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection).

The hymn, Take My Life, and Let it Be, ends with the lines:

“Take myself, and I will be

Ever, only, all, for thee” (Book of Common Prayer, Hymn 669).

The hymn, My God, I Love Thee; not Because, says:

“Then why, most loving Jesus Christ,
Should I not love thee well?
Not for the sake of winning heaven,
Or of escaping hell;
Not with the hope of gaining aught,
Not with seeking a reward;
But as thyself has loved me,
O ever-loving Lord”

(Hymn 380).

In the conservative Calvinist book, The Bible Tells Us So, we are all instructed concerning the Bible teaching to love God with all our strength: “He who withholds his love from God and bestows it on another is an idolater. So is he who divides his love between God and another. Let no one think that the divine law requires that we bestow most of our love on God and the remainder on our neighbour. It demands that we love God with our entire being, and that we love our neighbour for God’s sake. And the minister who preaches for his own glory rather than God’s glory is guilty of idolatry; but so is the minister who preaches for God’s glory and his own” (page 34). It says that because God has made us and loved us we all we have and are to God (page 91).
 
Evidence that Demands a Verdict Vol 1 quotes the Evangelical theologian John Stott with approval saying that in the Bible love means totally disregarding yourself and being empty of self-interest to serve God and others and states that love is sacrifice (page 121). You would not be able to sacrifice if you liked sacrificing. McDowell says that as a teenager he wanted to be the happiest person in the world. He says that happiness is not doing what you want to do but doing what you know you ought to do (page 363). This is right but he offers Jesus as the only solution. What about a person who uses logic differently and has different ideas of what they ought to do? What McDowell is saying is running down their experience. His is right and to Hell with everybody else’s. He knows he is right and everybody is, is wrong and knows it. This is a recipe for the violent intolerance and bigotry that has made Christianity the most notorious religion in the world in the view of many. When one can find meaning for life from arrogance there is something badly wrong and serious lies are being told by that one. Yet this bigotry was sanctioned by Jesus himself in the Gospel of John.
 
Page 238 of Reasons for Hope says that ultimately God alone is to be loved and is to receive our concern.
 
The Catholic mystic, Brother Lawrence, who wrote The Practice of the Presence of God, teaches that you should do what you do just for God and you should not care if you suffer forever or not as long as you love him because nothing should be done for the fear of everlasting torment but for the love of God meaning that loving God and not your happiness is what is important (Conversation Two). You should think only of God and by prayer you can.
 
Radio Replies 3, Question 21 tells us, "The more one believes in and esteems God, the less he believes in and esteems himself. Any good that is in him he attributes to God; and he is keenly conscious of his own shortcomings as being his own work. Aware of his sins, he is not astonished that suffering and trial should be his lot. Instead of thinking he deserves only the best, he knows that he deserves only the worse. He therefore asks God to forgive him his sins; and is grateful to God for treating him so much more gently than justice would demand" (page 6).
 
The same book on page 234, Question 976 tries to answer the problem of, "Is it selfishness to seek eternal happiness?" It replies that God wants us to have this happiness so we owe it to God to seek it and take it so it is not selfish. It says we must work for God's glory and our happiness will result, but not work for our own happiness hoping that God's glory will result. So it is unselfish and holy to take the happiness reluctantly. If you can't take it for its own sake but for somebody else's sake that is reluctance. The Christian is not reluctant about taking it for God. But how could you be happy on earth if you don't want to be happy? To not want to be happy for your own sake is to choose fake happiness or misery disguised as finery.
 
The Church says that if you do not like your neighbour you have to see not your neighbour but see God in your neighbour so that you believe you are helping and loving God when you are kind to your neighbour (Question 1000, Radio Replies 3). We are commanded to love our neighbour by God for the sake of God (Question 1001, Radio Replies 3). When the Church admits that it is not interested in charity work but in saving souls and that saving souls comes first (Radio Replies, Volume 3, 1351) it is no wonder. The doctrine of everlasting punishment implies that God comes first and not only that but is to be the infinite and only concern when serious sin deserves infinitely long torture.
 
The Student’s Catholic Doctrine says that we can only be saved by worshipping God by faith, hope and charity which is another way of saying that all has to be done just for God and that being good without him is no use (page 1, see also A Catechism of Christian Doctrine Question 8).
 
Kevin Vost in From Atheism to Catholicism (My Sunday Visitor, 2010) page 115 wrote that when he followed Rand's Objectivism which teaches that self-interest is the highest ethical and rational value, he struggled with it when his little child looked at him. He said that this was a little person who challenged his self-interest. But if he sees his child as part of himself and sees how he cannot serve his own self-interest without adoring the child then he can still say self-interest matters most. It is only the wrong kind of self-interest that is the problem. And to make God all that matters is worse than any problems with being an objectivist. If self-interest is so terrible then how can he love his child for children are self-interest personified? The argument used by Vost is full of half-truths and its goal is to make you appear evil and unfit to raise a child if you value self-interest first and foremost.
 
So loving a person, God, is all that matters. His goodness and yourself and others are not to be loved – not really. You are to just love him. If we love God just because he is a person then that is silly. Why this person and not yourself or your wife? Celibacy would be a more natural state than marriage. The Roman Church has always taught that celibacy and chastity are better than marriage and we see why.
 
The teaching about how we should be prepared to give up anything for God, good feelings, freedom from total depression, family and wealth is detested even by most Christians. That makes their adhering to their faith despite all the trouble it causes so reprehensible. If Christians are disturbed by the doctrine so much more will unbelievers be. Children thinking that their parents love God more than them or that the parents only care for them to please God will suffer untold psychological and emotional and developmental harm.