and post notes and photos about your poem like Rhoda Monihan.
Is the bible a claim on creation or moral benchmarks? It was moral to withdraw medical procedures from Hindu and Buddhist temples (and any others) through Christianity where Jesus was a Christ to those tavern regulars with dysentery (which would allow them perhaps to consider having less alcohol, especially if they frequented the pub daily, turning to begging most mealtimes, because sanitary conditions back then were bad) or those who did not believe in god or religion, since the medical administrators were the priests who required you to bow, pray and praise god upon receiving blessing and cure. Also, contrition or repentance if your rigid-from-birth arm was not cured in prospect of obedience at home due to tenseness or arrogance, which was translated by priestly roles as a lack of belief in the priest, so that you could go back again and have it stretched for the second time ever.
An absoluteness hung over religious temples and pre-Victorian churches where the face of pure-blooded humanism hung to cover the sheer truth that life rejuvenates and you only have one time-scale to overcome your illness because it is human formulae and composites that cure, not god. So throbbing hearts contrasted with red cheeks when you remembered last weeks priestly ritual which you either accepted or rejected. I don't believe medical treatment comes without challenge, or that the structure can be flaccid, so I have concluded that religion prefixed work in Mesopotamia and in the second agricultural age of iron tools, philosophy of mind medieval age and home values post-Victorian times until the post-modern explosion of opinions generating many tensions, with medical treatments through plants, stretching and surgical implements setting the priorities of the rituals whether or not they were healing based.
Therefore, to posit a psychosomatic interpretation of the gospel healings is consistent with ritual and sacrifice descriptions where god focussed your mind and theorised for you such that you must conclude that some human relationship befits the, apologies, logos and the evolving but interlacing trinity. I don't believe we should cup the infancy of god the supernatural being for a sense of today’s god, so as to throw a line to inquirers or kids. History does not claim, nor mew, nor process, nor placate, it only feels in its oesophageal gag to see your eye hint at hydration by its place. If nobody reads history, then it's not my fault because my first suggestion to readers is that god the overlooking, malevolent or nonchalant judge is absent completely, or that is the metaphysical being with relationship. Before Jesus came, witch doctors, tribal leaders, Hindu priests and Buddhist Sangha motioned the atmospheres within temples and their shrines because the black magic, spirit world was called, met and rejected in preference for an explanation of life by particles of reality whose entropy inflated particularly human relationships and lifelong loves. But Jesus came, religion became the validator of wealth, health and wellbeing rather than their mechanism. You had to follow Jesus to be sensual, which toppled society’s primary structure, religion, and turned it into humanist relationship.
If you believe in god, you can, but you must fabric him as a psychology or help rather than as a direction. Jesus is not humanism today, but you are to other people, so be nice rather than faith generating.