To me, these weeds are to be uprooted: Christians willingly inflict suffering unto others, as they believe it is the natural state of human being and must be increased in servitude of their God, especially near death.
https://www.hoover.org/research/religious-faith-and-charitab...
> The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent).
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/philanthropy-magazine...
> In study after study, religious practice is the behavioral variable with the strongest and most consistent association with generous giving. And people with religious motivations don’t give just to faith-based causes—they are also much likelier to give to secular causes than the nonreligious.
https://givingusa.org/just-released-giving-usa-special-repor...
> People who are religiously affiliated are more likely to make a charitable donation of any kind, whether to a religious congregation or to another type of charitable organization.
> Religiously affiliated households give as much or more to other types of charities as non-religiously affiliated households do.
It is Jesus’ final message.
Sin does not exist, they made it up to make themselves and others suffer.
Have you considered that some people are so keen on giving away their fortunes because it makes them suffer more, and thus makes them think they are now cleaner in God’s eyes?
The Christian message is that there's nothing we can do in our own power to erase sin, including suffering, hence the need for Jesus in the first place.
Death in Christianity is the final release from sin and its consequences, e.g. suffering, and into eternal joy...and being released of the weight of the consequences of sin eternally is supposed to bring joy and love in this life.
So I have no idea what you're talking about.
There are actually a LOT of different belief systems within Christianity and the related cults surrounding it, so you can't entirely sum them up by saying "Christianity". How I would respond to anyone stating that suffering is required to pay for sins is that it is un-Biblical and they've warped the message of Jesus, and are adding to/complicating the gospel.
This is possible in the Catholic church because edicts of the Pope and Councils have had equal (or at least near equal, I'm not a Catholic historian or theologian) weight with scripture, which of course have no weight at all to Protestantism as the Pope is just another person. Mother Theresa and penitents have such a drastically different belief system, that while I would not go so far as to call them non-Christian as I think only God alone determines that, I would say that their teachings are not the same religion as mine. Saints again are a purely Catholic thing, so to me and other protestants, Mother Theresa is just another person, and "Saint" is a worthless designation from the Catholic Church. In addition, individual adherents of what is classified as "Christian" can teach and believe (or fail in their belief) of the core doctrines and cease to become what I would consider Christian, despite doing things in the name of Christ. The church during the time of Paul's letters and Acts were dealing with the same thing, people using the name of Christ who were not what Luke or Paul considered Christians.
It sounds like a no-true-Scottsman argument, and perhaps it is, but the argument that I'm making is that you are lumping billions of people together, when #1 they don't lump themselves together (Catholics have considered protestants and the reformers heretics as well), and #2 they believe and practice drastically different things. You will likely hear Protestants hedge when asked if Roman Catholics are Christian, and the reason is because on an individual basis, there are Christians within the Roman Catholic church. But what they teach is not what we consider the Christian gospel.
Following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, leading to an expansion of the provision of care. Among the earliest were those built ca. 370 by St. Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), by Saint Fabiola in Rome ca. 390, and by the physician-priest Saint Sampson (d. 530) in Constantinople, Called the Basiliad, St. Basil's hospital resembled a city, and included housing for doctors and nurses and separate buildings for various classes of patients.[7] There was a separate section for lepers.[8] Eventually construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun.
Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals after the end of the persecution of the early church.[9] Ancient church leaders like St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) emphasized medicine as an aid to the provision of hospitality.[10] 12th century Roman Catholic orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites have long lived in religious communities that work for the care of the sick.[11]
Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine innovation.[12] Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician (archiatroi), professional nurses (hypourgoi) and orderlies (hyperetai). By the twelfth century, Constantinople had two well-organized hospitals, staffed by doctors who were both male and female. Facilities included systematic treatment procedures and specialized wards for various diseases.[13]
Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (An old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.") Some were attached to monasteries; others were independent and had their own endowments, usually of property, which provided income for their support. Some hospitals were multi-functional while others were founded for specific purposes such as leper hospitals, or as refuges for the poor, or for pilgrims: not all cared for the sick.
When and where the first hospital was established is a matter of dispute. According to some authorities (e.g. Ratzinger, p. 141), St. Zoticus built one at Constantinople during the reign of Constantine, but this has been denied (cf. Uhlhorn, I, 319). But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues (Soxomen, V, 16). As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. A splendid instance of this comprehensive charity is found in the work of St. Ephraem who, during the plague at Edessa (375), provided 300 beds for the sufferers. But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools. St. Gregory of Nazianzus was deeply impressed by the extent and efficiency of this institution which he calls "an easy ascent to heaven" and which he describes enthusiastically (Or. 39, "In laudem Basilii"; Or. fun. "In Basil.", P.G., XXXVI, 578-579).