...I didn't end up making a blog about it this time. I was initially tempted to, but then when I got to my in-law's place I just wanted to rest, so instead I sunk time into my new hyperfixation of Fields of Mistria. (I was THIS CLOSE to clearing the mines quest, on level 97...but then my laptop crashed, and I think I probably lost about an hour's progress. Like, probably wasn't even done with level 90, might have lost an entire museum's worth of RNG items, quest stuff, etc.)

There was, separately from church, a different blog I wanted to write, spurred by a comment on how neighbors don't really talk to each other anymore, and I wanted to go into why I theorize that the shift happened and why I think we should revive the process even if it's not identical to before.

But I'm also not going to write that blog.

Today's blog is mostly to let people know that I'm in the process of preparing to return home. The trip was...disappointing, in terms of accomplishing our goals; we did virtually none of what we wanted to do. But at the same time, it did give my wife some perspective, my wife some new ideas, my wife the family time they were craving, a lot of rest, a change of pace, a long break for me where I mostly got to rest, and inspiration for me.

I've got ideas for how to survive the following months, and I'm sure that when I return, I'll be overwhelmed, but at the same time, I'm hopeful.

I'm not going to say when we're leaving exactly, for obvious safety reasons, nor what route we're taking, similarly so. Those are things I communicate to friends and family in private, not put on a public blog post. I might be too busy to blog when home, and the risk of homelessness might mean I don't get to blog again if I take no action, but at the same time, I remain hopeful, and I will be leaving to return home soon.

I'll update y'all if I can of course. But this is the limit to what I feel comfortable publicly sharing. We're packing and prepping today, I'll say that much, but other than that...I'll hopefully see you on the other side.

Yes, really. I have good reasons to. For my whole life, I have been an incredibly spiritual person. And part of that lifelong spirituality and call to the realm beyond the physical, to more than what science knows? Was in fact dipping my toes into exploring Christianity. I went with my mom on multiple Easters, and now I have gone with my wife on Easter. I enjoyed watching the people, and bonding with the person I went with (my mom as a kid, my wife now), and I wanted to, in my curiosity, explore the religion to see if it could provide a tug to my innate spirituality.

...But every time, it does the exact opposite. My innate spirituality is repelled by Christianity because Christianity is in violation of everything spiritual, at least in the form that it is practiced and, particularly, preached by. As I've explored, I've found how much is so close to being spiritual in a healthy way, which is why I will still sing praises to elements, to aspects of, Christianity, for all of the good they stumbled upon, but it is that very fact that they almost have greatness and then they squander it by rhetoric drenched in shame and pressure and in lessening oneself and promoting one true path and in doing so demeaning those not following said path, that I am as critical as I am of the religion, because the spirituality which could be found there is destroyed and ripped apart by the rigid dogma of their preached doctrines.

The Easter sermon I attended today was in particular a fine show of that, where I could see the closeness to good ideas, and how those good ideas are then hard-pivoted into a self-centered belief system that undermines growth, that undermines faith itself, in favor of obedience to the church. And make no mistake, 'faith' and 'obedience', despite how closely they're often linked, are two entirely different things altogether. One can have healthy blind faith without a lick of obedience, but what I often observe from these sermons is asking for blind obedience without a lick of actual faith.

In fact the sermon I listened to made it clear that faith would give nothing, because belief alone is not enough. The good idea was there, but the twisted execution makes it deliver the exact opposite of an uplifting message of hope, of love, of bonding, of community. The sermon made it clear that the Christian doctrine dictates that the only one with any say in who goes to heaven is God and nothing we do can change that judgement, loosely speaking. Which is a nice idea, but horrible execution.

​And that brings me to one of my main gripes with the religion. An estimated 25 - 33% of humanity allegedly follows, loosely speaking, some denomination, variant, and/or cultist offshoot of Christianity. But by the belief of Christianity, belief in Jesus as the one true savior and the only path to Heaven would thus require that God would condemn a minimum of 66 - 75% of humanity to eternal damnation, per their belief system.

Now, in my last Christianity rant, I focused on how that doesn't sound like a combo ever possible from a God that's all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Because an all-powerful God has the power to intervene in any way God sees fit to set things exactly to God's plan. And an all-knowing God would know the exact consequences of those actions and inactions. And an all-loving God would see that under the current path with the level of interventions as they are, the majority of humanity would be condemned.

So by the Christian belief system, we would thus have to assume that God, knowing humanity's free will, would see that the majority of humanity would not follow the path to eternal salvation, and knowing this would happen, didn't...do anything about it, and willingly let the majority of humanity be condemned.

That aside from the contradiction between the idea of Jesus's sacrifice and the justification provided. Per Christian lore (and on Easter in particular this was heavily emphasized and reiterated), there was an Original Sin, committed by the biblical Adam and Eve. Aside from how we scientifically know there never was a singular Adam or a singular Eve and that humanity evolved (which undermines the entire concept of an Original Sin, because if humanity gradually evolved from prior forms of life there was never a garden of eden from which we were expelled from due to eating a forbidden fruit from a tree of knowledge or anything of the sort).

Even by the established lore, Jesus is said to have purged said Original Sin by his sacrifice. So if Jesus purged the original sin, then logically, all those born before would have it removed and retroactively be given a chance at Heaven (this is part of Christian lore as Jesus entered purgatory to remove all of those who should have been eligible for Heaven, per Christian lore), and all those born after would never have the Original Sin, because Jesus already purged it.

So if Jesus purged the Original Sin, then why would we still be dealing with the consequences of the original sin? Jesus paid the toll for ALL of humanity--past, present, and future. So if Jesus paid the toll of humanity for the original sin, then humanity shouldn't be suffering the consequences of the original sin. Yet this, as far as I can tell, just kinda...gets glossed over and ignored by the faith.

The preacher today literally said sin still lives in all of us. Which, I don't disagree with. But logically it shouldn't if Jesus removed the original sin as he allegedly did. And like, while I agree that all humans are imperfect (another part of the sermon), that imperfection doesn't equate to inherently being sinful. The majority of humanity, regardless of their beliefs, are good people who try their best to do their best and want to and try to do good.

Any God that would condemn the majority of humanity, when the majority of humanity is inherently innately good and trying their best? Couldn't be an all-loving God, so couldn't be a God of mine.

Even if we add in adjacent beliefs, like Islam, that's still a good half of humanity damned to their idea of Hell. (Because those of the Abrahamic faith make up about half the human population according to a quick Google search, with about 33% identifying as forms of atheist, agnostic, nothing-in-particular, or pagan, and the remaining being other belief systems if I recall correctly.)

And that's aside from how just belief in Jesus as the savior and the one path to salvation is not enough to guarantee a place in Heaven, as made clear. (And I actually agree on that part.)
Not all who (allegedly) identify as Christian, hold to the standards of Christianity. Aside from the monsters committing the most heinous of crimes against humanity, life, and the planet itself, there's the stringent contradictory standards required of the faith per their doctrine. What rules to follow, what rules to ignore, is something left arbitrary, in a way which it couldn't possibly be if The Bible were truly the One True Word of God showing the One True Path.

If The Bible, if Christianity, truly held One True Path towards Salvation, then which rules to follow shouldn't be so widely debated and so widely different and contradictory. What one branch of Christianity might view as a sacred requirement, another might see as trivial. What one branch might see as a hard line which if crossed condemns a soul, a different branch might see as a requirement for salvation.

When the belief is so divisive as to what matters and what doesn't in terms of salvation and damnation, it cannot be seen as one true path, because every branch views themselves as the best path, and thus, they cannot all be the mandated path of salvation by God. Now, there's nothing wrong with a doctrine deliberately leaving things arbitrary and up to the individual. That's one area I mean in how Christianity comes so close to true spirituality.

Leaving spiritual beliefs and practices for what matters and what doesn't up to an individual with none more or less valid than the other? That, I can get behind! I believe in precisely that! But every single branch of Christianity, every single denomination, doesn't present their faith in that light, from what I've found. To the contrary, they do the exact opposite. They try to portray Christianity as one unified faith with one unified path towards salvation where if certain rules are followed it puts you in good graces with Jesus whereas certain other things will be judged by God as worthy of eternal damnation.

​There's definitely beliefs that tend to be more widespread, of course. In particular New Testament focus, on Jesus's words, on Jesus's preaching, on what Jesus said and on what Jesus did. But it should be no surprise, then, that this is where I find my greatest disappointment in Christianity. If I were ever asked by a Christian, I would say "I actually follow the teachings of Jesus, but because I follow the teachings of Jesus, I cannot identify as a Christian because no branch of Christianity I know of follows them to my satisfaction".

As one example of many, I've found that all modern churches I know of, without exception, fail to follow one of the most important tenets of their alleged savior Jesus.

If they were to truly embrace Jesus's teachings, these churches would organize volunteers to keep their doors open 24/7.

They would accept, around the clock, regardless of weather (within their capacity to reach the church and keep the church powered, at least), people staying in the house of God, for as long as they wish. This tenet of Jesus's teachings was historically known and followed, with churches as sacred places of refuge, of sanctity, of shelter. These places were safe spaces, places for even those who weren't true believers, who weren't of the Christian faith, to come to at any time they needed, even in the dead of night.

Christians in churches, if they were actually following Jesus's teachings, would have kept to that. Providing shelter from the elements, water, and bathrooms, all for free, all for as long as they need them. If desired, they would provide sermons, and similar services. To direct those who come seeking aid to places they can find it, to teach, to read, to give those in need some love and support in their time of need.

I would ask all Christians who attend church:
Why doesn't your church do this?
Why doesn't your church, with all of its members, with all of its volunteers, with all of its community members, with all of the services it offers, with all of the donations they receive and resources they have available, organize a way to keep the church open around the clock to give year-round services to the needy, to the poor, to the unfortunate, to the vulnerable?

Why does your church have hours of operation? Why does your church shut down during times that are often the time people most need help? Why does your church turn away people who are at the door requesting aid, requesting services, requesting entry? Why does your church not try to help those people more actively and passively?

I want those Christians who attend church to give that some real, good, long, thought.

Because the answer is often more uncomfortable than they're willing to admit:
The answer is, quite simply, a failure to follow in the footsteps of Jesus as they allegedly aim to.

The answers most Christians would give for why their church doesn't do that, I guarantee would be in violation of the faith's fundamental teachings. How many passages deal with treating every single person as if they're God, as if they're Jesus, as if they could be an Angel, and showing them kindness, showing them empathy, showing them love, showing them compassion, and trying to help them? Even me, without being someone who has read The Bible start to finish, is familiar enough with it to paraphrase entries along those lines. Bible nerds can quote the exact passages I'm sure.

So if they know that they should be doing those things...why is their place of worship...not built to provide those things? Why are churches not designed to provide 24/7 humanitarian relief and service humanity as a whole?

I understand Christians who have private property they live on not opening up their home to everyone; that is their right. (It probably isn't supported by the faith, but I personally support it, because people deserve to have their own personal sanctuaries, their own safe space, their own control over their own domain and their own homes are theirs, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what The Bible may say.)

I understand Christians also often operate services like food banks and homelessness shelters, so it's not exactly like they don't do any humanitarian work at all. (Although many branches don't do any, I will at least acknowledge some do.)

But unless those services are available 24/7, then they run into the same question. Barring logistical impossibilities, where there's not enough people to run it, where there's no ability to get there, where there's no power, where there's severe weather making it impossible or extremely unwise to get there...why aren't they open 24/7?

To give to the needy, to give to the poor, to give shelter and refuge to all, no matter what, is something that is baked into the faith, which is at the heart of Jesus's teachings. To have humans help humans, to the best of their ability, and that all of humanity when they network and band together are capable of doing a better job at it than any individual human would be.

And Jesus got very mad at the greed, the corruption, the waste, of those who used their wealth to further enrich themselves and reject the poor and to become elite and entitled. Jesus flipped tables and encouraged nonviolent resistance to said elite, to make reform and to advocate for the needy, the poor, to chastise the rich and the wealthy for wasting their resources and not distributing them to those who need them.

​There was a time Christians understood this and were known for following it, where they would provide a place of refuge to even those accused of crimes--even at the risk to those within. They would risk their church, they would risk their lives, to protect those who were seeking sanctuary, particularly from forces of oppression.

​Now, I understand the church does have a bad rep in going too far in this regard, notoriously having sheltered those guilty of war crimes (particularly, smuggling them after world war 2 for instance), and more infamously in modern times, actively protecting those who enact the worst of crimes on children, women, and fellow humans.

But there's a difference between shielding those worst-of-crimes-individuals from the consequences of their actions (something allowing them to continue to propagate harm to humans),
And providing a place of warmth and basic human decency to all, regardless of risk.

The latter is something Jesus demanded of all his followers. A level of personal risk in trusting in the inner goodness of humanity. To serve, to assist, those in need, without prejudice, regardless of whether those in need are thankful, loosely speaking. I would, in my personal belief, state that there are of course reasonable limits to this. You can't pour from an empty cup, and all that. But I don't think The Bible itself has any verses from Jesus where he states there are limits to providing compassion. That, I admit, I could be wrong about, but at the same time, I think you understand where I'm coming from in how the faith, per Jesus, demands that level of faith in the good in humans and trust in them and the command to help those to the best of our ability to.

​I know a lot of Christians justify not providing these services off of the belief that those receiving them are exploiting good faith--that their good faith in humanity is being exploited, being used, by people. Often "they're lazy". But that sounds awfully judgemental, doesn't it? Nobody knows the circumstances of others. Only God does, per their belief. Only God gets to make judgements, per oh so MANY verses in The Bible. God being the Judge, not humanity, is kinda a very big thing in The Bible.

So stopping to provide services on the belief that those receiving the services are lazy, are exploiting the services, are greedy, are sinners, are unworthy of being helped, cannot be helped, don't need the help, etc.?

All of that sounds like, to me, passing judgement and taking God's place as judge. As judging humans who these Christians do not know everything about.

I can understand there being certain cases where tough judgement calls must be made. Do you value one human you want to help over the safety of all the humans you already are helping, for instance? Of course you would want to, but it would be totally fair to say, "I can't, we don't have the ability to help you while also helping those we already are". It would arguably be irresponsible to try and help everyone while knowing you can't.

But at the same time. There's a difference between logistical realities (those are things we must acknowledge and tackle overcoming and cannot ignore),
Versus preconceived biases in notions of what can be done for humans and who can be helped.

​Jesus would lecture, disappointed, every Christian guilty of the latter, for closing the doors of their churches, because the one good use of those churches should be to serve communities. Jesus had lectures about how religion was largely something to keep between the individual and God, in that religion was deeply personal, and that the institutionalized organized churches of his time were straying from that, straying from God, by serving to succumb to corruption, to greed, to apathy. (Sound familiar? It should.)

And while I don't think churches should be abolished, I do think they should be structured in a way to avoid greed, to avoid apathy, to avoid corruption, by having them be geared to provide said 24/7 services to their community.

According to Christian lore, Jesus knew the risks going into Jerusalem, that he was going to die doing what he was to do, but he went anyway, under the belief he was going to save all of humanity by doing what he did. He faced the worst of humanity, without fear, without judging, for the sake of humanity at its best, for the sake of the parts of humanity worth saving.

Yet churches close their doors in fear of humanity's worse. Fearing looters, fearing vandals, fearing druggies, fearing the unclean, fearing the diseased, fearing the ill, fearing the deranged. And in doing so, in closing their doors to humanity's minority, in closing their doors in fear of humanity at its lowest, those churches forsake humanity at its best.

According to Christian lore, Jesus died for us, because he loved us.

Yet Christians who close their doors to their churches are unwilling to risk death out of love for humanity.

That shows why churches not open 24/7 (barring logistical impossibilities of this) are, on a fundamental level, not following in the footsteps of their alleged lord and savior. They put hours on the church for when the doors to God are open, rather than leaving God's doors open around the clock. And I bet you they do it primarily out of fear, out of prejudice, out of passing judgement on their fellow humans, despite being human.

Despite being imperfect and having imperfect knowledge of other imperfect humans, they deny continuous service to those other imperfect humans.

If I ever found a church that was organized such that it kept the lights on and doors open 24/7, offering free access to shelter, to bathrooms, then that alone might interest me in joining the church. I could never share their faith in believing Jesus is divine and the one true savior, but I would happily help them in servicing their community and serving as a beacon of spirituality and offering sanctity to all.

But to my knowledge, no Christian church like that exists. And that is perhaps one of the strongest reasons why I cannot get behind Christianity as a faith. It is quoted to cliche about how much it is said Jesus was a chill guy but his Christians are insufferable and unable to be endured. So while I can truthfully call my beliefs Christian-adjacent because of all of what Christianity almost does right, I can never follow the faith itself in proper, because Christianity as it is laid out by Christians is the foil to everything I consider spirituality to be:

An example of so many things gone close to healthy, gone close to uplifting humanity, but twisted in a way which only biases and divides as most Christians understand their doctrine.

Once again, though, I want to reiterate that I actually endorse many of the ideas of Christianity. My point in this blog isn't to purely deconstruct Christianity, tear it down and leave atheists out of previous believers, to leave doubters out of those previously holding faith. Rather, it's me doing my own reconstruction of Christianity, by calling out the parts that need to be called out, and to shine a light on the better parts of the faith.

I said previously that Jesus might not literally be the son of God, but I still see him as divine, and that remains true--because I feel like his teachings provide a great amount of insight into spirituality, into how to help humanity, how to bring humanity together, and his legacy there is undeniable. Many spiritual practices state that humans can be elevated to divinity in some form or another by their legacy, and while I personally don't ascribe to that belief, I would certainly agree with anyone who holds that belief stating Jesus more than qualified!

His life is something only those were there knew about. And those who saw, believed; those who don't but still do, are by Christian scripture, extra sacred. (Yes this was given, the Bible version was verbatim given in the lecture during Easter, although I'm obviously paraphrasing.) This history was given orally over a couple of generations, then written down in various accounts, then translated a couple of times, then some of them arbitrarily compiled, and while the true form of it was known only to those around to witness it, the fact we have at least pieces of his life over 2,000 years later is incredible.

I might have beef with the religion and all of those who identify as Christian without being much like Jesus, but I still hold a level of reverence for it, and believe there is merit in a lot of it. But for now, that's all I have to say. Happy Easter, to all who celebrate. And to those who don't, I hope you can find your own things to celebrate. I don't have the energy to reconstruct the holiday of Easter the way I have previously done on my blog for holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas, but I hope you still enjoyed the read.