Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations


The Christians claim to put God first but then they disprove it by saying Jesus, a man whose existence is not as certain as that of JF Kennedy, is God. And Jesus' alleged perfect virtue is less certain and there are examples of his bigotry and extremism and racism in the New Testament.  Christians go down to his level with too many "explanations" that are merely far-fetched speculation.  Too many explanations is a warning sign.  If it is true that God has to leave room for faith leaving absolute certainty that Jesus existed would still leave room for faith for faith is about who Jesus is.  If Jesus claimed to be the only essential role model then he only proved that he cannot be.  And it gets worse if he says he is God, the biggest role model imaginable!  A Jesus whose career has led only to superstition and lies is just the seed of a bad tree.  The fruit shows the role model is a bad one.

The popular saying, "What would Jesus do?" assumes Jesus was a good role model.  It is a clever trick.  You end up working out the best thing to do and imagine that Jesus would have done it.  Thus Jesus gets glory he is not entitled to.  Thus the priests and clergy and preachers get glory too for lying about this outstanding role model.

The text in blue is from the excellent article by a former Christadelphian.

My comments are in red.

You've heard the phrase, 'What would Jesus do?', often presented as the acronym WWJD. Perhaps it would help to answer that question by looking at what Jesus did do, and extrapolating from there.

So here's a list of the most notable things Jesus actually did, according to the gospels:
1. Got baptised (Matt 3:13)
That is seen as a major deed in the New Testament as if nothing else mattered as much.
2. Fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness (Matt 4:1; Luke 4:2) 
If Jesus was sinless then his doing this was just masochism.
3. Read in the synagogue (Luke 4:16)
4. Moved house to live near the sea (Matthew 4:12)
5. Climbed mountains, several times (e.g. Matt 5:1; Mark 3)
6. Sailed in a boat many times (e.g. Matt 8:23-27, 13:1-2, 14:13; Mark 3 & 4)
7. Killed a herd of pigs, by magically sending them off a cliff (Matt 8:32)
8. Walked through grain fields (Matt 12:1; Mark 2:23)
9. Walked on water (Matt 14:25)
10. Rode a donkey and a colt at the same time (Matt 21:7). (I am genuinely impressed by this one!)
11. Made a whip out of cords and used it to drive people out of the temple, also turning tables and chairs over. (Matt 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45; John 2:15)
12. Watched people putting money into the treasury (Mark 12:41)
13. Ate a meal with his friends (Matt 26:20)
14. Prayed a lot of times (e.g. Matt 26:26)
15. Magic. Jesus did a LOT of magic.
16. Preaching. Jesus also did a LOT of preaching.

When people talk about following Jesus' example, it seems clear to me that they are probably not talking about what he actually did, but rather about what he said. Otherwise, given the fact that none of us can do magic, we would be left with the example of preaching a lot and not much else. I've never heard Christians asking us to take up sailing or mountain climbing in the name of Jesus, but those things would seem to be equally valid candidates for "following Jesus' example", if they were at all concerned with the life he lived.

Given that we have very little information about Jesus' actual life, the only things left to actually "follow" are his words. Those are open to interpretation, which has lead to an enormous amount of theological debate, but in any case I'd agree there are some good points in what he said.

Love your enemies

Did Jesus love his enemies? He called them various nasty names, such as a "offspring of vipers"(Matt 23:33), "blind fools" (Matt 23:17) and "whitewashed tombs" (Matt 23:27). He even called Herod a "fox" (Luke 13:32).

He gave no example of how to love enemies at all.  It was just words.  And any dealings he had with enemies were fiery.

But what evidence is there that Jesus loved anyone? There is no act of love recorded about Jesus in the gospels, especially not any act of love towards his enemies. At best, Christians would have to point to his death as an act of love. But that assumes that everything Jesus said was true, otherwise where is the love?

In Luke 19, Jesus told a parable about a nobleman who went to a far country to receive a kingdom after which he would return. The nobleman is said to represent Jesus. The parable ends with a description of how this nobleman would treat his enemies: "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slaughter them in front of me!"  Luke 19:27

Where is the good, moral example of how we are supposed to show love to our enemies?

Caring for the poor and sick

Perhaps you think Jesus' example was to care for the poor and the sick. After all, there are many examples in the gospels of Jesus healing the sick and offering verbal comfort to the poor.

But on closer inspection, it seems that Jesus never once cared for anyone but himself, except via magic. I don't see a great example here. If we had such magic powers, I think we could do many more good deeds than Jesus did. Imagine being able to heal every sick person and raise the dead, simply by chanting some words or touching them! 
Compassion is cheap if you have miracle powers.  It is the lazy way to help.  Giving Jesus prime honour is an insult to the humanitarians who bled and sacrificed and suffered for others.  I see the worship of Jesus as passive aggressive for it wishes to degrade such people, degrade the people who were helped by them and shows that Christians who do good regard it as dirt compared to doing the magic of Jesus.  Doing good properly is seen as less than ideal.  Human nature does not really love good but it loves whatever can look like it but which has a bad side. Magic is the proper word for Jesus when you consider magic to mean using dodgy forces that nobody can see to get results without doing things the natural way.

If Jesus really had such powers, he could have done so much more. See Matthew 10:5-8:  Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them as follows: "Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near!’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons."

Doesn't it seem a little bit odd for Jesus to want to prevent his national enemies from being healed? It also seems weird for Jesus to ask his disciples to cast out demons, rather than educating them about germ theory. It's almost as if Jesus himself thought disease was caused by demons...but I digress.

I'm sure if any one of us had those same powers, we could close down every hospital in the world! Not only that, we could end world hunger and solve the energy crisis. Just imagine the possibilities!

Yet although the gospels say Jesus did use his power to feed and heal many people, the above verses show that he also placed limits on who the powers could be used on. What moral reason could there be for such a restriction?

Notice that the notion that God has mysterious ways puts faith before suffering?  Believers are forced to admit that some things happen that look horrendous and random.  Instead of working out that God has mysterious ways they are forced to pretend that he does because of what they see around them.  The truly good person does not use the suffering of others and risk seeing it as fine in the scheme of things to develop faith.  It is not about you it is about the sufferers.

A person doing magic to cure and who asks us to do things the hard and natural way is a hypocrite.

It is tempting to think that Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead primarily for the benefit of the people who were affected, as an act of pure kindness. Perhaps in many cases this could be true. We don't know. But on at least one occasion the gospels show Jesus using healing purely to further his own agenda:
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then he said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.”
Matthew 9:6

So what example did Jesus actually leave us here?

Caring for the poor and sick is a lot more difficult for us than it was for Jesus. We don't have magic to heal the blind or raise the dead. We rely on technology and modern medicine, which people have had to figure out all on their own, with no help from Jesus. Imagine if Jesus had laid the foundation for medicine 2000 years ago. Perhaps we could have a universal cure for cancer by now! But instead all we have from Jesus (or rather, the gospels), is Iron Age superstition and reports of miracles (which are plentiful from that era, even outside the Bible!).

So to summarise, whatever Jesus did or said, there is no evidence of him leaving behind any meaningful example of how we should care for the poor or the sick. In our times, we try to care for the sick and the poor, not because we needed someone to tell us to, but because we can see that it is the moral and kind thing to do. We look after each other, hoping that others will look after us. We also care for people because we love them. We even sacrifice our time and energy to assist those who are sick, and we often give of our own wealth to assist the poor. Jesus did neither of those things. Healing the sick cost him no time or energy. He also had no money with which to help the poor. If we want to help the poor and the sick, it is obvious that we must find our own way to do it, because Jesus left no such example for us to follow.

So what was Jesus' purpose?

Many people seem to think that Jesus' purpose was to show people an example of a perfect life, but I've demonstrated above that the Bible just doesn't support this view.

But we don't need to guess what Jesus' purpose was, because he told us himself in Matthew 10:34-36:  "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." 
The believers say he was only saying what would happen to those who love him.  But why does he use the language of intention?  If he meant what the believers said he would have said, "Those who follow me will often face the sword. You will see a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

This is a disappointment for those of us who do seek peace on Earth. Christadelphians
[any Bible believer is signing up to this notion too] claim that God will set up a kingdom of peace in the future, but they also believe Jesus will be its king. I assume that's also when he'll have his enemies slaughtered in front of him. I find it incredibly disturbing that God's supposedly perfect plan to bring peace involves killing everyone who disagrees with him. That's the very same plan some nations seem to have today. The world needs an end to such barbaric tribalism, not more of it!

The perfect example to follow?

So you claim to be a follower of Jesus. Well, that's nice. But what does that mean?

Perhaps it means that you cherry-pick some of the good things he said, and try to live a good life following those principles. If so, then you're probably a pretty good person, and even people from other cultures and religions would probably agree. But wouldn't that mean your standard of what is good is actually not Jesus? Rather, you measure Jesus' words against your own standard of what it means to be a good person, and then simply accept the things that align with it. There's nothing wrong with that.
[But cherrypicking is dishonest and many cherrypickers pretend to be true believers.  A religion with faulty scriptures and errors is not convincing and it will die out gradually among sensible and honest people.  If a religion is going to be a force for positive long term change it needs to be persuasive.  Read the next line carefully: IF AN AUTHORITY FROM GOD SUCH AS JESUS GIVES GOOD TEACHINGS AND BAD ONES - REJECT HIM NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE GOOD TEACHINGS ARE.  THEY DO NOT EXCUSE THE BAD TEACHINGS BUT MAKE THEM MORE INEXCUSABLE AND YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE WITH HIM.  IGNORING EVIL TEACHINGS IS ITSELF BAD FOR YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IGNORE THEM]

Or perhaps you really do want to emulate Jesus in every respect, both in what he said and what he did.

In that case, you might want to consider a life of preaching, with no money, and hoping to heal people by chanting some words or touching them. Of course, having no money makes it difficult to truly help the poor in any meaningful way, so you might need to offer them some empty platitudes instead, and promise them success in the next life. If you're really good, you might even convince them that being poor is a blessing.

Some of the things Jesus did might make you unpopular, such as watching how much money people put in the collection bags, walking through other people's crops, and chasing a town's entire livestock off a cliff.

People like to say they want role models but usually they don't want truly moral ones but one that is partly moral will do.  Is that why Jesus is so popular? 

It is not love to worship Jesus or to worship in the Christian faith because that implicitly says God speaks to man and God has told man to have people stoned to death.  Remember what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13?  "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

He wrote that if you commit huge sacrifices for faith but without love then you are just show.  And the New Testament is clear that failure to love one person is enough.  It is not loving to the victims of the Bible God to worship Jesus.  If Paul's insight came from Jesus then that says it all.

Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the source of all goodness and when Christians do good it is really he who is working not them. If a Christian can be good it does not follow that Christianity or Jesus really is good. The evil done by organisational Christianity and many individual Christians could be down to them tuning into a spiritual force that pretends to be good but which is in fact manipulatively evil. The evil is common enough and serious enough to ask if Jesus is the spiritual cause. He allegedly exercises his role model skills through his people. What they do says something about him. The atheist who does not believe in spiritual entities believes that the problem is down to Jesus not being what he claimed to be. A false saviour damages those who depend on his strength and example for help. It is like drinking Kaballah water to purify your heart - it will not work. It will not help and it will leave you getting worse.

Religion insists we must make a role model out of God.

Christians hold that we must regard Jesus as God and take him as our exemplar. You need a purely ordinary and purely human role model. You can love and copy such a person better than you can a sinless God-man!
The Church responds that Jesus was the best man who ever lived - but it does that by making excuses for some of the terrible things he did and said. It makes excuses for his violent behaviour in the Temple - excuses that even Jesus didn't make. Without an explanation from Jesus, the excuses are just worthless speculation. The Christians do not look to excuse the scandalous antics of other gods.
You need a human role model. At least you can see and hear and be with the human role model! You need a good but imperfect role model. You will never be perfect so that is exactly what you need. Jesus is long gone. He was no good if he lived and he is no good now.

Christianity teaches that Jesus should be our only role model and thus it is clearly a stupid and fanatical religion and poses a hindrance to real goodness. Though you might think the saints are role models, we must remember that what makes them revered as saints is not their innate goodness but how well they copied Jesus and tried to be other Christs. There is only the one role model ultimately. The saint does good and then boasts about how Jesus did the good not her or him.

The Church teaches that Jesus shows what he is like through the saints - so he continues to be our role model through the saints. He has saved the saints from sin and made them holier and holier. But there are people who hate Jesus who are still saintly and heroic. There are people who deny that there is anybody else who can save them from sin. Yet they do incredible heroic things. They make a difference. If Jesus is presented to us as saviour - his name means saviour - and he is not saviour that is a very serious matter. To call Jesus your saviour and to say he is working on you when he is not is actually a form of self-righteousness. Christians claim to be humble but humility is arrogance when it is about trying to be humbler than everybody else. You never really know if somebody is really humble. Calling Jesus your saviour from pride and sin says more about you than him. But Jesus' teaching is largely to blame for your actions nonetheless.

The Church presents Jesus Christ as a role model and an exemplar for us. It says he was God and also a normal vulnerable man. This is stated by the Church in spite of the fact that if you are God then you can hardly be vulnerable like the rest of us for you have the power to get out of any situation. The Church just pretends that it thinks Jesus is God. Its wilful idolatry. The Church would say that the pagans are idolaters even if they say that God and the statue of God are two natures yet one person. So it is idolatrous itself.

Bible teaching on idolatry is very simple. If you adore a god who does not exist and who cannot hear or see you you are wasting your worship. If Jesus is not a god or is dead then the worship given to Jesus is idolatrous.

A false prophet is always behind idolatry. If you think your statue answers your prayers, then you are functioning as a prophet of the false god. It is said that a false prophet will prophesy on his own account and for his own benefit. Some do. The rest do it not for any obvious benefit and some even risk their lives for their lies such as Joseph Smith of the Mormons. These false prophets benefit simply from being listened to and taken seriously and they do not directly blow their own trumpets. They get their prideful thrill and exaltation from merely plotting and working to be seen as prophets. They know that it is necessary to be subtle at least most of the time in order to get lasting and acceptable results. Thus the false prophet who preaches about God all the time is as much a fake as the one who goes, "I am your saviour and whoever comes to me will be saved. Adore me and imitate me." But he is a craftier and more cynical fake. The fact that Jesus claimed to be a prophet makes his claims suspicious. And Jesus did in fact act like a false prophet who wanted to make it obvious that he was after adoration. And at times he did act like the craftier version of the false prophet who gets psychological benefits from pretending to be focused on God.

Those who say that idolaters deep down are not mistaken that there is a higher power such as God so they intend to worship him after all are only lying and making politically correct excuses for the idolaters. The excuse overlooks the fact that they are called idolaters because they treat what cannot hear or see or pity them as if it can.

It is idolatry when the Church gives you a God who became man to provide an example and when we have to pretend he gave us good example when he did not. If people really thought he did then why is his story in the gospels such a big yawn?

The believer must be careful not to think that Jesus was given the role for he understands our human frailties. That implies that God does not know all things. God does not need to become man to understand us. It follows then that his becoming man might feel useful to some but is essentially useless. Some believers admit that Jesus did not need to experience our trials to be able to understand them. For them it was one out of many ways he chose so that we can relate to him better. Sounds manipulative to me! Both on Jesus' part and theirs.
Religion says that idolatry is so attractive to us for it appeals to our wish not to be good but to be good in our own way. We care about looking good not about being good. So idolatry is refusing to look at God as he is but as we want to see him. We can easily fool people that we are true devotees of God. For the Christian, God needs to be brought down to the level of a supposedly good man who is seen as God himself. This is a way of feigning devotion to God while he is actually being belittled and seen not as he is but seen through the stained glass redeemer.
People say that Jesus was the friend of all. That is a lie for he was very abusive to the Jewish leaders if you read Matthew 23. And he did not befriend prostitutes, abandoned wives, rape victims, alcoholics etc. He only befriended some people who changed their ways and only after they had done so.

"Salvation is of the Jews". Jesus told the Samaritan woman that. Though Samaritans believed the same essentials as the Jews Jesus had a problem with her religion. Jesus is pointing to a faith that was based on scripture supposedly written by God which says plenty about divine anger and God wanting innocent people such as heretics and idol-worshippers and adulterers put to death by stoning the cruellest thing imaginable. This man is an over-rated role model. No truly good person tolerates evil in the name of religion or anything else.  Nobody has the right to point the way to a religion that stomachs any violence or violent revelations from God.  Nobody has the right to tell somebody her religion does not save when his own is nothing special morally.
The Old Testament God laid down that certain sinners such as homosexuals were to be stoned to death. Jesus if he is this God, as he supposedly claimed to be, is responsible. Christians who say that God had no choice but to command the executions cannot tell us why he had no choice. They only guess that. Also, even if he had no choice did it really have to be done by stoning? That was ultra-cruel. It is a lie too that the rules were civil rules. They were religious rules and to be enforced by religion. If the laws were really civil rules they would be more detailed and read like legislation. And Israel was a wandering tribe not a state at the time the rules were given.
The New Testament never repudiates the killings or says that the killing rules have been abrogated. If they were abrogated it was not because they were considered by Jesus to be immoral. He is clear that they are not.
Jesus said that he agreed with the Old Testament laws that people should be killed and applauded the command to put a son who curses his parents to death.
Jesus in the Gospel of John allegedly saved a woman who was about to be stoned for adultery. But Christians usually say that she was not being put forward for execution according to the rules but against them. If they were a lynch mob, they were breaking the law. The story cannot be used to show that Jesus condemned stoning anybody to death. It does the opposite. He told people that if they were not breaking the law themselves they could stone her to death for adultery.
The New Testament never protests against execution according to the rules.

Early Christians kept out of the armies. It does not mean they were against killing but against the secular powers of the time that were pagan and barbaric. And if they thought the executing was wrong that was a mistake for Jesus never hinted that it was to be discontinued. Anyway even the apostles warned that mass apostasy in the faith was already happening in their day so the majority of early Christians could have been heretical pacifists.
To claim that the rules about killing are not binding on us any more is irresponsible for it is a lie. People will find out and could consider obeying the laws again.

The Church claims that the perfect and loving God became man, Jesus, to give us an example of how we can be like him. The Church brags that it eats this Jesus at Mass so that it becomes like him for we are what we eat!

The Church then contradicts this by saying that Jesus was God and had supernatural powers. A man who has the power to turn stones into bread and who sleeps rough and has to earn his bread is not a role model. Rather he is an actor.

By presenting Jesus as a human example, the Church is merely damaging us. Nobody can feel that a man-God is an example for them. In fact, it only discourages them.

Jesus Christ was not an example for anybody. He didn’t do any good works. The atheist who is serving soup down skid row is a better person.

He did not act like a normal person. He went on about faith all the time. He did no normal good works - it had to be the lazy option of miracles. He was very blunt. He talked a lot about Hell and demons. And he said we must copy him. The Church thinks today that Jesus would have believed he was God but that does not mean he was certain of it. If God really became man in Jesus, then it is possible Jesus never realised he was God until the resurrection. The reason for this is so that Jesus could be a real role model for us. But hardly anybody copies him.

There are no stories of how Jesus lived among the lepers and dressed up their wounds.

There are no stories about him doing without his food to feed the poor.

There are no stories about how he raised money for the starving children in Jordan's war zones.

There are no stories about how he averted bloodshed and became a peacemaker in gang warfare.

The Church has people feeling they are united with their departed parents and children and others by praying for them. This is a cruel lie for the Church claims that Jesus was right to say that family relationships end at death so that your spouse is not your spouse any more.

Jesus didn’t agree with annulling marriages between men and young girls. In fact he told them their marriages were indissoluble. He did nothing about the corrupt and silly laws of the time. In fact, all he did was ban men from divorcing in order to enslave women more to men.  Men in a man's world hate their wives if they feel they are stuck with them.  He banned women from divorcing even though they could not divorce anyway (he was reinforcing the entrapment of women) and marriage was terrible for them and they were treated as baby producers.  Sometimes a woman leaving a marriage could save her life if she stayed celibate after for at least she would not die in childbirth. Some say that Jesus thought highly of women when women were the first ones to meet him after he rose from the dead.  But nothing says Jesus planned that or expected that.  And their testimony was confirmed by men so it is still really about the men.  And he told the adulteress she should be stoned if men worth to stone her could be found.  And as for the Samaritan woman he engaged in a conversation with her that commented on her sexual morals and her religion.  The respect Jesus had for women is totally mythical.  It is an insult to women to pretend that a misogynist is a woman's liberationist.  Most men who respect women still treat them as second class and that is the problem. 

Jesus sent people to cast out demons. They rejoiced at their success. He told them not to rejoice that the demons were expelled but to rejoice that their names were written in Heaven. See Luke 10:17-20. Clearly having faith that one will be blessed in Heaven is to be selfishly celebrated in preference to celebrating the power to do good works! The passage teaches pure Lutheranism - where faith is exalted and good works denigrated.

All we have are miracle tales that he cured people without any loss to himself. How easy it was for him!

The Church then invented those miracle stories about him to make him appear in a better light.

Read the story of the poor widow who put a pittance into the Temple collection for it was all she had. Jesus said she had given more than the rest for she gave and left herself with nothing. Jesus himself said that if you give out of your wealth you deserve no praise because its no loss to you. So then how could a man with miracle powers deserve a reward for magicing away somebody’s sickness? How can he deserve praise? His help cost him nothing. Jesus was an example of religiosity not humanity.

Robert Price in Blaming Jesus for Jehovah says that Jesus welcomed outcasts and urged people to turn their lives away from sin and did not rail against those who crucified him. But even that is not really praiseworthy. To welcome people with a view to see them come into a man-made faith that teaches violence in the name of God and worships a God who endorsed that violence is not what a good man does. It would not stop him being popular but it would stop him being good. And sin (a crime against God) violates his own teaching against unfair judgment for it is not fair to accuse people of offending God if there is no God to care what you do. You need to prove God has reveal moral laws before you can accuse anybody of sin. And bad people usually do not rail against those who are putting them to death. And the gospels would not tell us if Jesus was abusive on the cross. Luke says Jesus prayed for his tormenters saying that he wanted God to forgive them for they know not what they do. That is pure passive aggression for if you start saying evil people don’t know what they are doing you won’t feel angry enough to do something about them. And Jesus may have in fact railed against God on the cross for he roared that he was forsaken by God.

Do not forget that Jesus's main "good" trait, his forgiving nature, is not really a good trait. Why? Because he threatened those who would not forgive the same person several times a day by saying God would visit judgement on them and their sins would not be forgiven. In Matthew 18:34-35 Jesus warns that you will be tortured by God through torturers he employs if you don't forgive your brother sincerely. If you are threatened to forgive the end result will be a very unsatisfying forgiveness. Jesus' gospel spreads torture and if you don't embrace the torture worse will wait for you in the afterlife! Forgiveness has to be natural not forced. What Jesus advocated was a passive aggressive form of hypocrisy disguised as mercy. To bully people to forgive those who savaged them is reprehensible.

We still do not have a man who laboured for the rights of the poor, for changing bad social structures, who condemned capital punishment and the torture of women accused of adultery and who gave away the last loaf he had. The “good” Jesus did even if it could be called good is cheap. It makes Christians feel good to have such a terrible role model for the same reason it made the pagans feel good to have gods with flawed morals and intelligence. It makes them feel better about the kind of people they are.

The Protestant religion tends to find that people get tired of its Jesus very quickly. Catholicism has a bigger hold over Catholics than Protestants do Protestants chiefly because the Church sets the saints as role models knowing that Jesus as God cannot be a humble role model.   And he was not exactly endearing for he never once gave his breakfast to the poor. The gospels found a dearth of his good works so they made up miracles about him helping people. The Catholics claim that Jesus is still with us as much today as he was when he was a visible man. If Catholics find him off-putting they reason, "But he is at work doing good and binding up the wounds of the sick through his saints and his people." That is a rationalisation. You could say that of Hitler.

It could be argued that if Jesus really made religion better that he was a moral relativist who thought that murdering other nations in the name of faith in God was okay in the past but not now. Is being a moral relativist really anything to boast about?

Christians say Jesus was truly God and truly man. This is the incarnation. It is the reason why Mary, Jesus' mother, is referred to as the mother of God. The notion of some that Jesus was sinless but limited by the incarnation and that was where his vicious or unedifying teachings came from is a fraud. God incarnate should not be doing things that look like sins. The believers are only trying to pretend that Jesus' bad behaviour was not really bad but just mistaken. The argument is speculation for the New Testament insists that Jesus was the quintessential role model and even better than sin-free Job of the Old Testament. And the believers do not use such excuses for other god-men such as Krishna.

It is odd that making a saint of Jack the Ripper is unthinkable for Christians when they make saints of Moses who was a mass-murderer and of St Paul. And they make a God of the man that condoned murders that surpassed anything the Ripper ever did.


Theologians today usually find the notion of Jesus having to pay for our sins as in atone for them ridiculous. God can simply forgive. And if God punishes Jesus in our place it follows that we do not really get forgiveness for that is not what he intends to give. There is no evidence that Jesus really was a happy person and his deliberately refusing to hide on the night of his arrest when he guessed he would be crucified and his provocative answers during his trial show that his intention was to be suicidal and bring crucifixion on himself. The negativity and hatred expressed by Jesus towards sin and the world and the Pharisees turned him into a man who badly wanted to escape from this world. People want to use Jesus as a case against big things such as abortion, same sex marriage and euthanasia.  My point is that if somebody wants to use Jesus as a case against euthanasia they are doomed to expose themselves as liars. Jesus supposedly suffering to give meaning to all suffering. Sorry suffering is the loss of meaning among other things so there is no such thing as giving meaning to suffering! Even if there was a huge risk of losing meaning when you suffer and this is unavoidable for many the doctrine is cruel and passive aggressive. Feeling that somebody else has suffered even a God has no magical power to help you. It can make you feel worse and indeed should for you don’t want to make everything about you.


Is Jesus only respected because his followers are not really followers for they know little about him or is it that they are happy to idolise a bad model of holiness?  There is an egotism in saying that your god is the best or the perfect one and that you are in a position to assess for you are so smart and good.  To say your God is perfect is you indirectly boasting about yourself.

It is odd how Catholics who hate Protestants claim to love Jesus when for all they know the Protestants might be right that he set up their religion and theology. If Jesus was a Protestant or would look on the Protestants as his true followers in doctrine what then?

If you are in a position to judge Jesus as the perfect role model then you must be even more perfect for you are claiming to be in a position to judge. The humility of Christianity is really arrogant self-aggrandizement. The God you adore can be seen in the mirror.

These are the things you have to ignore by calling mysteries if you want to believe in Jesus.

His rioting in the Temple.

His telling a woman that her daughter was the same as a dog.

His telling a vulnerable frightened woman that she deserved to be stoned to death.

His threat that anybody who does not believe will be damned as if you can control what you believe that much!

His not repudiating the violence of his God in the Old Testament.

And much much more.

Finally, Christianity excuses things such as hate at times by saying human nature is weak and hate is not a sin then.  There are enough loopholes to mean the faith is nothing special.  But do not forget that the loopholes would apply to Jesus as a man as well.  Thus they are complete hypocrites by pretending that they know that Jesus was all-loving.