Chrooth

Growing up in a house of 3 boys whose intelligence was only ever outdone by their anger, I learned 2 things:

1. Getting punched in the head never hurt as much as I was afraid it would.
2. Nothing in this world is capable of causing more pain than the right words at the perfect moment.

Physical aggression was a given in my house and I learned very quickly that all I had to do was get more angry and the physical pain would be drowned in the ensuing rush of adrenaline.  But the fight was never ended by a death blow or crippling arm bar.  The end was always the same.  We would reach deep into the depths of our cruelty until we found that one sentence we knew would bring the other to immediate tears.  We got really good at it.

Fortunately my take away in life was only a testament to the power of words that drove an obsession with them that ultimately led me to much more respectable uses of them than breaking peoples’ hearts.

What’s this got to do with freedom?  Easy answer.  This article will make a constant metaphor between words and guns and so I will require of the reader that they acknowledge the fact that words are not just a weapon, but one of the most dangerous weapons man has ever learned to forge and wield.

Lately I seem to be hearing a lot about the suppression of free speech, specifically from people who are well known to use them very specifically and very effectively to cause hurt.  So I am heeding the need to remind you of how freedom works.

In short, you are allowed certain freedoms in this country, but you are only allowed those freedoms as long as they are not used in the suppression of the freedoms of others.  The Declaration of Independence states clearly that we are all born with the inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  You have the right to be alive. You have the right fundamental freedom.  And you have the right to happiness.

So the gun thing.

You have the right to bear arms, according to the second amendment of the constitution.  I don’t know anyone that would say, if someone uses a gun to rob someone of their property or their life, that they should continue to be allowed to own guns.  They are free men and they have a constitutionally protected right to own a gun.  Notwithstanding, freedoms, when abused, can be revoked.  It is called justice.

In the protection of the innocent, whenever a person uses an instrument of their rights to oppress or infringe upon the freedoms of another, those rights are forfeit.  You kill someone, you don’t get a gun anymore.  If you are proven guilty of felony assault with a deadly weapon (assault just means threatening.  If there is physical contact it becomes battery) your right to bear arms is permanently revoked.

So the word part of the gun thing.

You have the right to freedom of speech, according to the first amendment of the constitution.  I know plenty who are willing to suggest that even if someone is using speech to rob someone of their well being, and right to the happiness afforded from feeling safe that it’s fine because we have freedom of speech.  That’s not the case.  The right to free speech is no different than the right to bear arms.  If you use it to infringe upon the freedom and happiness of another citizen, if you threaten someones life, if you preach hatred and violence against a person or group, I’m very proud to be the one to inform you that you are wrong.  Your hatred, vitriol, violence, malevolence, racism, bigotry, ignorance, anger, and unreasonable ill-will will not be tolerated.  Your speech will be suppressed and the world will be a greater place without your voice perverting the progress of the last century that we thought had led us to more suitable, tolerant, peaceful times.  We thought we had lost enough lives in the second world war to render your specific brand of stupidity utterly obsolete but we were wrong, so here we are. But just remember you are small and we know just what to do with you.  If your kind were unable to secure victory under the mass ignorance of the middle of the 20th century, rest assured, you will be dispatched with minimal effort in the enlightenment of the 21st.

You can spew your hatred for people who aren’t like you, and when we condemn you, you will cry out again and again that we are suppressing your free speech.  You will be right but that won’t keep the world from laughing at your complete inability to comprehend your condition and understand how absolutely irrelevant you views have become.

One thing both sides should consider.  The harder we fight, the more we unite the other side.  We know that the more we suppress you, the so called “Alt-Right” the stronger your bonds become.  It’s true.  But your pathetic nature will always act as a hindrance to your capacity to recruit and so you will never attain the numbers required to win.

On the other hand, the louder you cry, the more we will unite in defense of one another and if you choose to fight, you should understand that you will be down as a traitor to the country that has already defeated you many times over.

You are not an American. America hates you.  We still haven’t forgiven you for the second world war. You are not even Christian despite your pathetic efforts.  A loving Middle-Eastern Christ would in no uncertain terms condemn you entirely.  Most of you probably aren’t even entirely White.  To be certain you should all definitely go have your genome analyzed to make sure you’re not a descendant of some mixed raced lineage that you would condemn in the first place.

All you actually are is irrelevant.  You are a terrorist.  And you are already beaten.

The great return to civilization. I return a bit different; a bit stronger, a bit lighter, a bit wiser, and a bit stronger. I come back to a world a bit darker, a bit louder, everyone a bit more aloof than I remember, but I suspect I may not have been paying attention.  Caught up in the fray of the world like everyone else; caught up in those imposed needs to be cool, to be rich, to be handsome, to be funny, to be a man, yet in everyone, I see them trying so hard and so fast that they’ve lost focus and forgotten the meaning of it all.  I see city lights glaring, illuminating wayward paths through this monument to human confusion. I see girls who’ve buried themselves in colored dusts and waxes because they’ve forgotten what it means to be beautiful. I see giant boys and their tattoo’d testimony of strength enough to move a mountain, but not enough not to cry themselves to sleep.  I see touch-screen zombies and headphone hermits chasing peace in the wrong direction.  In a world of smoke screen chaos they chase you into hiding in a corner where they’re waiting with another lie to sell you, and it works as much as you’re convinced that you’re immune.  But we’re not.  None of us are.  I fell for it.  I’ve seen people much stronger than me collapse beneath it’s crushing influence.  The only strength I claim is to know it when I see it, and when I see it in me, to find a place that it can’t touch me for a while.  When I return I know it better; I know ME better; I love me better, a bit different, a bit stronger, a bit lighter, a bit wiser and a bit stronger.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/29/15830970/women-health-care-maternal-mortality-rate

This is a growing theme as of late and I can’t help but notice that one side of this argument seems to be becoming progressively more militant in their stance.  I think we all know why this seems to be concerning.  Regardless of what side you’re on, you have to understand how troubling it is to see a resurgence in something is unbelievably and willfully stupid as flat earth theory.  Vaccines I get.  I don’t agree but I understand where the concern is generated from.  GMO’s sure, they’re terrifying at first glance, but when you do the research; actual research into how these things work and pull the curtain down from the hyperbole that is being spread in order to scare you away from them, the fear inevitably withdraws.

Now neither of these two examples is directly to do with religion, but they are a symptom of a mindset that has originated in the battle between religion and the discipline that keeps invalidating it’s understanding of the universe.  Like homosexuality for example.  If homosexuality is natural, that means it is, by default, condoned at least in some small part, by God, but that would mean the text in the Old Testament is flawed.  So you refuse to believe that homosexuality arose as a natural condition and deride the discipline suggests that it is.  The seed is planted.

Once you become comfortable disputing fact, it’s kind of an avalanche from there and all of the sudden climate scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, scientific dating methods are held as invalid, and the entire fields of Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Meteorology, and Physics are just some hoax.  But there’s one problem.

You are disobeying your God as he has commanded you to be humble.  You are commanded by Jesus Christ himself, in Mathew 11:29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart”.

I can promise you, preaching to the world that climate scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, even though you can’t even explain the concept of “half life” is the exact opposite of humility.  You don’t know what an isotope is.  You don’t understand the concept of heat energy density across different states of matter.  You aren’t qualified to question the physical equations that describe the transfer of energy between ultra-violet radiation and green house gas molecules.  You have no idea what the chemical composition of the permafrost is or what stands to be released by their thawing.  And that’s just a small GLIMPSE of the science you have to MASTER in order to fully understand the implications of the science behind climate change.

You dispute evolution, even though you can’t even name the 4 base pairs of nucleotides that make up DNA.  You don’t know what a Helicase molecule does even though it’s one of the COOLEST machines in the entire biological kingdom.  You ignore the cosmos of information that supports it in favor of a story in a 3000 year old book that suggests that God will punish you for wearing that poly-cotton blend t-shirt you’re wearing without even realizing that you’re breaking a commandment from your God.

Not only are you allowing your “faith” to propel you into insanity, and that’s what this is; denying something that is objectively provable for no other reason than that you are too lazy to study the concept in enough detail to form and coherent opinion, is insanity, but you are defying the tenants of your own faith because you haven’t studied it well enough either.  If you had, you would understand the benefit of softening your heart enough to realize that questioning these facts just makes you AND your faith seem completely out of touch with reality, resulting in this ridiculous and completely unnecessary dialogue where we get to fight over whether or not the earth is an oblate ellipsoid.  It is.  If you’ve never heard of an oblate ellipsoid, shut the hell up, and nod your head because you’re not qualified to dispute it.  If you’re really, really passionate about it, grow some fucking discipline and learn your shapes like a big boy, then make sure you learn enough about why we think things are the way they are to formulate a coherent dispute based on DATA, not your ill informed philosophical conjecture.

As it is said too well.  In God we trust, all others, bring data.  If you can’t, you will be automatically written off as either a conflicted interest, or complete idiot.  That’s all there is to it.

I am always hesitant to distribute an opinion based on intuitive perception, but this is too simple, makes too much sense and is too potentially destructive to keep quiet.

For the last 3 years, I have been fortunate enough to have built a small company with the love of my life.  It is a skin care company, and since it’s inception, our singular focus, above all else has been to produce quality products.  After 3 years, we are still relatively small.  We have grown enough to remain completely invested in the business with an eye on the future, but we are by no means exploding.  We have received countless offers and suggestions, urging us to take on an investor, and always with the most grandiose elaboration on the realization of our true potential as a company.  This is always very tempting, but the discussion always leads back to the same place…  Interests.  As I said we are small and focused on quality.  What that means is that we use simple, and pure ingredients in our products.  The unfortunate result is that they are not what most would call stable.  Like I said they are great products, but their shelf life is not as long as it could be, and our flagship product has a melting point of around 75 degrees Fahrenheit.  We could add some fillers, a stabilizer or two and  preservative and the end result would be an ideal model for a commercial cosmetic product, but that’s not what we’re after.  We are a small batch, high quality, purist producer that believes our only true value as a company is in our unique dedication to purity and simplicity and that’s all there is to it.

The first question out of every investors mouth is always along the same lines.  “What do your sales look like?” “How many stores are you in?”… Always focused on volume, and that makes sense because an investor serves 1 function for 1 purpose.  They provide money, in the hopes of making more on the back end.  Of course this has it’s usefulness, but I realized this morning that it has one, major flaw.

The relationship is simple, they give you money, you give them ownership and thus decision making power.  Because their interest is financial, money is the single driving force of the every decision.  These people are not investing because they care about you and what you do.  Investments are not limited to the realm of the investors expertise, or else they wouldn’t have much to invest in because their expertise is money.  Unfortunately that means they don’t care about the quality of your product.  They don’t care about your customers’ satisfaction.  They don’t care about ethics, or integrity.  They care about quarterly gains.  As long as this quarter yielded more profit than the last, they are happy and that’s all there is to it.

I will take a moment to qualify that I am not attempting, nor do I believe it possible to describe the basic nature of every investor relationship in a few paragraphs.  There is an exception to every rule, and this may not even be the rule, but it is happening.  I know it is happening because I’m watching it happen, and what is happening is very clear.

I call it customer stretching.  A slow increase in price, supplemented by a decrease in product quality in the name of increasing profitability.  These things happen very slowly and incrementally, usually slow enough that those in charge feel that this slight decrease in product quality is justified by the economy it provides.  However, after a sufficient number of quality sacrifices, you inevitably end up with a shit product, and that’s all there is to it.  The product is slowly degraded and the price is slowly raised until the bubble bursts, triggering company collapse and a sell off happens. Why?  Investor directed business strategy.  Executives making terrible decisions to satisfy greedy investors with the singular focus of making as much money as they can as quickly as they can.  Once the company is driven to collapse, the investors lose a bit, before they can all bail, but not nearly as much as they’ve gotten.  From there, for them it’s as simple as identifying the next investment opportunity.  Meanwhile, the founders, employees, everyone who actually relied on the company for support are left in the gutter.

So let’s just start if off strong, shall we?

The reason Donald Trump is president now is simple.  There are 2 parts.  1 – Fraud and manipulation in the DNC led to the bogus nomination of an unelectable criminal.  2 – The hubris of the left led to a gross underestimation of the support Mr. Trump would be able to garner simply by disavowing and swearing to rid Washington of it’s special interest foundations.

We underestimated you.  You complained and we refused to take you seriously because we had the big chair and didn’t think you could touch us (hubris), and frankly, your elected officials were doing a fantastic job of making you look too immature to pose any threat.  Denying climate change, protesting evolution, asserting that women can only get pregnant from consensual sex, baseless government shutdowns, cherry picking morality, and all the scandal any media outlet could shake a teleprompter at.

Through all the noise, we didn’t feel it necessary to search for any signal.  And that is my solemn consolation and apology for the neglect you’ve been shown for what are you more substantial and valid concerns.  I also hope that this is not taken as a plea of desperation from the newly demoted underdog, this is a sincere request for cooperation and at the very least a cautionary PSA, warning that you should not make the same mistake we did, because as you found out yesterday, we are louder than you are.  We are more terrified than you ever were under Obama.  The empty hyperbole of your media figures, warning you of FEMA camps and catastrophic gun removal programs as always based on nothing.  I looked myself for where this rhetoric originated and no, no one ever said anything that ever amounted to any of it.  It was all empty scare tactics meant to mobilize your fear against a pretend enemy.

I’m not saying you had no rational concerns.  I hate abortion as much as any republican, but we have extremely differing views on how to mitigate it.  Despite your hatred of big government enforcing unconstitutional laws, you think that’s the way to get rid of it.  I understand that the only success we’ve ever had in reducing abortion rates is to increase access to sexual education and contraceptives.  But the fact remains, we both want it gone and I believe we can work together to get there.

As for a comparison of why we are so terrified of this administration, Donald Trump has already cost taxpayers more than any other president elect in the history of our country.  I recently saw an article decrying Obama for the 90 million he spent on travel over 8 years in office.  That breaks down to a little over 10 million per year, which is a lot!  But protecting the president is expensive.  In comparison, Donald Trump cost tax payers 7 million dollars, just for one trip to Florida for Thanksgiving.  The man isn’t even in office yet and he’s already blown through about 65% of what Republicans obviously felt was an egregiously extravagant travel budget.  Donald Trump could not limit his travel to the restroom over the rest of this year and manage to cost the tax payers less than the remaining 3.something million he has left before his travel spending is considered out of control.

From here, yes, I could go in to detail about all of my disagreements with his appointed cabinet, but what’s the point?  You disagree and I’m fine with that, but the point remains.  We are extremely pissed off, and you can do one of two things with that.  You can do everything in your power to actually listen, and encourage meaningful cooperation, or you can make the same mistake we did, and be devastated when we come back in 2020 so desperate and so motivated by your ignorance that your entire political platform will be dissolved for lack of ability to adapt to the inevitable future of our planet and our society.

Step 1 is to listen.  Pass or fail.

And I do mean ALL respect.  I do not maintain for a minute that your skills are in even the slightest bit of question, however if I may attempt to clarify, this should be pretty easy to resolve.

Art can be effectively defined as any form of self expression or communication meant to identify and direct our attention to the nature of the human condition. Art provides a window through which we are better able to see ourselves and hopefully come to understand something we were previously ignorant to.

I think that is as objective of a definition as we could get out of something as subjective a term as art. I find in most cases understanding art is a matter of being able to see through the window and the perspective required is not always inherent. Sometimes it helps to have someone direct us to the perspective required to understand a given expression.

Now, with that in mind, lets look at competitive fighting from an artistic perspective. When the fight is understood to be a representation of life challenges, the metaphor is opened. It doesn’t matter what they are fighting for but the artistic expression remains, there are two men with one need who stand in each others way, only one can have it. These men are deliberately matched by their body type to ensure that possible physical advantage is minimized, meaning that the only asset these two men have in their fight against one another is their creativity. Whoever has the best trick wins and that is where the art happens.

Sport of any kind could be easily defined as art in it’s attempt to epitomize the applicable skill most effectively. I don’t think it matters if it is a spin move into a perfectly executed fade away jump shot in a basketball game, a perfectly timed Hail Mary, barely snagged by the tips of a receivers fingers in the end zone with no time left on the clock, the execution of Tchaikovsky’s first symphony, or a smooth duck spun into a spinning back fist for the knock out.

When any skill is executed with previously unrecognized creativity, it is unarguably art. When the venue of the exhibition of that skill is any competition, it is ALSO called sport, but the two are by no means mutually exclusive and to deny that is to deny yourself the greatest appreciation for sport for no other reason than maintaining a black and white view of a colorful world.

So let’s get past the history of this argument that everyone is already sick of.  The conservative side is to point to the vagueness of the predictions, the inconsistencies they see in the data, and the fact that the scientific consensus is NOT actually 97%.  The liberal rebuttal being the results we’ve already observed, a correction of the conservative interpretation of the data and the reassertion of what the actual consensus of scientists is and what it needs to be to matter.  Then it decays into accusations of money, ultimately culminating in a series of conspiracy theories, my favorite of which is that climate change was invented by the largest consumer of coal in the world (China) in order to help Al Gore make millions of dollars.

Both parties, like every other major topic of contention between the parties ends with a complete dismissal of the other camp as idiotic and naive.

In light of how many times I have had this exact discussion on several issues, I see no choice but to attempt to take a different approach.

In the wake of all the contention that has arisen out of the last election cycle, we have all heard the same rallying cry, calling for an end to the vitriolic politics of the past that used these separating issues as their base platform.  It has become all too apparent that we are easier to control when we are divided, and this understanding has spurred a renewed effort to come together, and to cooperate so that we can take our country back for ourselves and dismiss the political monopoly of money’d interests that has been allowed to dictate the laws of our land for far too long.  This suggestion will be my first contribution toward that unifying ideal. And even if it is seen as naive or useless, I think it’s at least a fairly hilarious thought!

The thought came when I happened upon a map, outlining the geographical distribution of liberals vs. conservatives.  My first thought was a reactive comparison, suggesting that a correlation could easily be made, relating political views to a persons exposure to salt water.  I immediately rebuked myself once I remembered Utahs Great Salt Lake AND their title as one of the most conservative states in the country.  So it must have something specifically to do with ocean water!

No, of course not!  These thoughts were ONLY entertained out of complete boredom and I found them HILARIOUS!  But then a rational thought accidentally crept in, in the form of a question.  “What’s going to happen to all these red counties, once the blue counties are all flooded because the red guys decided climate change was a just a conspiracy?”  The answer was obvious.

The displacement of climate refugees in the U.S. represents the onset of a political invasion unlike anything we’ve ever seen.  Of course it depends on how much flooding actually may occur, but at a quick glance it is immediately striking.  Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Boston, New York, Portland, all MAJOR metropolitan areas, almost entirely populated by liberal voters.

Step 1:GTFO! In other words, people tend to run as far away as they can from any problem that is immediately threatening their livelihood. Where do they go?  Inland!  But not just inland.  They would have to go inland to a place that would most likely be able to support their livelihood.  Which leads us to Step 2.

Step 2: But where!?  If you’re a liberal and you have to move, would you rather move somewhere you know that you will have nothing in common with anyone? Or somewhere that may be threatening to provide you with a viable social outlet.  A place that has a tendency to make laws that reflect your beliefs as opposed to the polar opposite.  That’s right!  When it comes down to the choice, the wine connoisseurs will be sure to avoid the dry counties at all costs.  Somewhere well inland that has managed to avoid the religious monopolies of the truly red states.

So where does that lead them??? SWING STATES!  Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconson, Iowa, Arizona. Just between these 6 states, there are 74 electoral votes at stake.

Now take a look at http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

There is a lot of interesting information in this data, the most glaring of which is how we used to vote as a country.  Prior to the 90’s, it was totally common for the winning president to win in a landslide.  It looks like the country was in the habit of uniting behind the best candidate, until you see that Richard Nixon was a part of that trend, and then you begin to wonder if the consensus isn’t just an indication of our susceptibility to the influence of the media… I digress.

The point that I would like you to take away from the election cycles is the tightening margin by which the conservative party are winning by.  Every Democratic victory has been a land slide.  Bill Clinton won both elections by over 200 electoral votes.  George W. Bush one his first election by 10 votes, and his second by only 30. Barack Obama came back to win his first election by almost 200 electoral college votes and his second won by over 120 votes.

Donal Trump won this election by 74 votes.  If he hadn’t won, Pennsylvania and Ohio, he would have lost entirely. Just 2 of those swing states could have cost Republicans the election.

Point being, if the liberals are flooded out of their coastal havens, the Republican party is putting every presidential election for the foreseeable future and immitigable risk.  Couple that with the voting patterns in voters under 30 and there is no doubt that the Republican party is on course for complete dissolution.

In summary, the Republican party no longer has a choice.  It is either going to make the concessions required to exist at all in the future, or it can stay it’s current course and we will watch as it’s elderly base dies off and it’s younger half implodes under the weight of their nearsightedness.

References:
Maps and Cities by Political affiliation: http://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/top-conservative-and-liberal-cities-in-the-united-states/

Potential impact of sea level rise: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/18/how-high-can-the-sea-level-rise-if-all-the-glacial-ice-melted/

Millenial voters: https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11/14/how-millennials-voted

Swing States: http://potus2016.org/swing-states-election-2016/

I have always been a little bit more sensitive to the details and implications of how things work.  I don’t take much of anything lightly, and I never stop digging until I understand the actual root cause of whatever I may be investigating.  In my profession this has served me well, but not entirely.  I am successful in my attention to detail, but occasionally resented for my perceived tendency to over-explain, much like I may be doing now, but to me, it’s all relevant, so I will beg for your forgiveness and your continued patience.

Religion is another matter.  My need to understand causality in such intimate terms has been the single biggest influence in my alienation from religion and that is precisely due to the fact that I understand religion to be a terrible template one which to build a person.  My first major revelation was the dissonance between what the church taught me about sex, and what sex taught me about sex.  Through continued investigation, it is no surprise to me that the Christian church is responsible for producing more sexually deviant behaviors than any other force I could name.  You see, through their lack of understanding the nature and application of sex, their philosophy on the matter is accordingly flawed.  Sex is bad.  Sex is sinful.  Sex should be avoided at all costs.  Sex is forbidden until you are married and then even in some traditions, it is encouraged to only engage in sex for the sake of reproduction.  Contraception of any form is abominable.  You get the picture.  They completely ignore the biological factors involved in sex, and our psychological compulsion toward it.  They ignore the benefits, and the need for sexual health to be a factor in our relationships.  Good sex is essential for a healthy relationship, but it simply isn’t probable in a union between two virgins.  Sex is complicated and potentially volatile if the chemistry is off even at all.  Given the placement of sex in Maslow’s list of psychological needs, you would think that it makes sense to ensure that sexual compatibility is established only prior to making an eternal promise to spend the rest of infinity together.

So my question is, how has religion effected your perception of the world?  How has it crafted your psychological machinery, and how well does that machinery work with reality?

This brings me back to the title.  Why do I feel religion, more specifically Christianity is so narcissistic?  There are a few beliefs that contribute to this perception but none more so than the concept of the Atonement.  That Jesus died on the cross so that we could be forgiven of our sins and enter into heaven and eternal bliss with our maker.  At first glance it is an enticing proposition, but it is unfortunately and ultimately catastrophically inhumane.

Of course the first issue is that it didn’t work…  When you understand the concept of sin in the context it was created, sin was the cause behind a person or community being subjected to God’s wrath.  That wrath was defined by 3 main factors, disease, famine, and drought.  I was personally surprised to find in my last read through of the old testament that there really isn’t any mention of eternal hell or heaven.  When they are talking about the coming of a messiah to free the world from the bounds of sin and remove them from the execution of God’s wrath, their vision most likely consisted of being disease free, well fed, and having plenty of water because those were the only things that really concerned the people of this early farming era when these laws were written.

Of course we found that their understanding of the causes of disease, drought, and famine, were completely fallacious.  It makes sense that they would migrate their understanding of the consequences of sin to something a little less tangible.  You can’t control a group of people when they can reason around your laws with so much ease as medicine, soil nutrition and meteorology provided.  But even this is beside my point.

My reasons for resenting the concept of the atonement is because it only considers the interest of the sinner.  This is wildly pointless for the betterment of humanity.  What’s the point of the savior that can only promise to rescue people from their own guilt?  Why does the savior not serve the function of making the victims of the sinner whole?  Does it make sense that, if a Christian rapes a woman, who then becomes sexually frigid due to PTSD, thus resulting in the dissolution of the marriage and destroying the family, that God’s primary concern is with whether or not he can forgive the rapist?  Again, there is absolutely no consideration for the victims in this scenario.  People are allowed to sin, and absolved of any threat of punishment barring a few special super bad sins, but for the majority, every sin you commit is ideologically ok, because the SINNER is able to repent, regardless of whether or not it is even possible to repair the damage they have done.  Christian salvation is focused solely on personal salvation, and because of this, it cannot be expected to encourage humanitarian cooperation.  It is fundamentally selfish and so can only serve to promote a pattern of destructive beliefs and behaviors.