HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!




Jesus Christ, the reputed founder of Christianity, was allegedly the most decent religious teacher of all time. This reputation is a hoax whole and entire and largely enabled by people who have barely read the New Testament.  The man was a cult-leader and had brainwashed slaves if the gospels are to be believed. A cult is a religion that teaches lies, that bullies its members to follow it, or otherwise manipulates them. Christianity is doubtlessly still cultic though it might not be as obvious as it used to be but the gospels say that the entourage of Jesus was a full-blown dangerous cult. In their stupidity, they thought this cultism was to be applauded.
Jesus turned the family into a mockery of union. He went further to make it also a mockery of love by forbidding divorce. The marriages of his days were of men and sometimes older ones who wed young girls in their early teens.  Women had no right to divorce and Jesus reinforced that right though admittedly he took that right from men too.  If anybody should be allowed to divorce it should have been the women.  They were too young to wed and plus they had no say in the ceremony - the man alone gave consent.


The Catholic Church does not allow an attempt to dissolve the marriage but allows divorce under certain conditions as long as this is understood to be merely a legal decree and does not really end the marriage in the sight of God or allow remarriage.  Jesus' teaching has only led to hypocrisy like that and marriages that put on appearances but which are full of hate.


In Mark 10, firstly, Jesus attacks divorce and later he attacks remarriage. Clearly, then he was opposed even to the divorce that the Catholics permit. He said the two are joined in one flesh and are one so this bond should not be terminated. Jesus was against separation. And he urged his disciples to separate from their wives! 

One of the things people find most shocking about cult-leaders is how they try to tear apart the bond of family and friendship in order that they might have the victim to themselves. David Berg, the founder of the Children of God, actually told young people to hate their parents if they did not share their son or daughter’s new faith. Frankly, Christians have the cheek to say that Jesus was right to break up families and that anybody else who demands such splits is wrong to.


Jesus commanded that if your parents are against you following him then  you must hate them.  Christians say he was only being poetic - he only meant that you are not to literally hate them but merely to love them less than him and disobey them.  But he uses the word miseo for hate.  If he meant what the Christians say then why didn't he say so for he lived in a culture where many cults that wrecked families existed?  He meant it.  Jesus speaking of a slave said that the slave that has two masters will hate one miseo and love the other (Luke 16:13). He is saying that miseo is not love at all. It is the absence of love if it is not outright spite. Jesus is making it clear that you cannot love God and a man. If you love your neighbour what you mean is that you treat your neighbour well purely as an act of devotion to God.

The Sermon on the Mount itself states that nobody who loves and is kind to those who love him deserves any praise or reward. The Church licks up good family men at their funerals for the Church is only a power game anyway. Jesus ran down family life. By implication we should not like to be treated well by those who love us but should rather love our enemies instead of them and serve the enemies. That is the true sense of the golden rule, Treat others as you would be treated.

Jesus promised an incredible reward for those who left their loved ones, children, land and/or property for him (Mark 10). They leave freely for otherwise there would be no talk of a reward. In those days of hardship and danger, that would have meant leaving the children in deep trouble. Going to another land meant you could not make it to their bedside if they were sick or dying. Travel was slow and arduous. If you wanted to be poor or poorer you left your home country. And there was no way to send money back to your family. Jesus said that their reward would be earthly in the form of getting new children, the converts they would minister to. This implies that those who leave all will get substitutes which they will be attached to as their own children. And houses will be their reward too. These houses will be gifts, not paid for, for they are rewards. Jesus expects people who cannot afford to have a house in the new land to go the land anyway which would probably entail never returning home for they would be too poor to. The message is that Jesus approves of poor men and women leaving their children and going into another land with not even a penny to their name. He is possibly not asking people to have no concern for the welfare of their children but to put them in God’s hands and go. In practice this is as bad as not caring about them anymore. It still proves that he was evil because we don’t tolerate cultists doing this.

When the rich young man left Jesus because Jesus asked him to sell all his possessions for the poor, Jesus said that it was so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven and that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. Jesus did not say some rich men but implied he meant all. The disciples then said that nobody could be saved in that case. Jesus didn’t correct them. Jesus’ response was that only God who could do the impossible could save them. They knew he meant all rich men.
Most poor people are rich in a way. They could have the same attachment to material things as the rich and tend to more for they have less. This implies that when the God of the Bible makes out he prefers the poor that it is only a plot to make us unhappy and advance poverty. Telling the poor they had the best chance of Heaven the way the Church did was always useful for keeping people poor and subservient to the Church which grew rich from leeching off them. The Church guessed correctly that if people became rich they would lose their devotion to the Church. They would be less submissive.
The poor man will be more attached to what little he has than the rich man would be attached to the wealth he has for the poor man will have nothing if he loses what little he has while the rich man can survive big losses. The disciples sensed that Jesus was driving at this when they said that nobody could be saved if the rich are excluded from Heaven. Jesus unmistakeably agreed with them on this. The fact that Jesus or the gospeller did not make this clearer for the sake of the readers indicates that something has been cut out of the gospels. Something along the lines of, “I tell you, do not think that the rich are those who have plenty only but also are those who have little and prefer it to the rule of God,” has certainly been excised by the greedy Church. The apostles would have been ashamed of Jesus’ anti-property stance for they controlled the finances in Jerusalem when they ordered the Church to surrender its goods to them in the Book of Acts. But it is still there implicitly. The rich man episode proves that Jesus was opposed to private property. He gave moral grounds for his opposition. He said that material things prevent communion with God.
His words stand forever as a testimony and proof that the Christian Church has rarely cared about him when it has sought and won wealth and power.
He said elsewhere that actions speak louder than words so he had no time for anybody saying they did not care if they lost their wealth for God or not as long as God was content. The danger was that people might think they meant it and be wrong. And the danger was that people would love their wealth and lie and say they did not love it. And the danger was that wealth is a source of temptation and Jesus told us to pray that we would not be put to the test. Jesus was confident that God would look after his own if they dropped all they had for him so he saw anybody like the rich young man who did not trust enough to leave all for God as sinful.
Despite the fact that his disciples were living in a turbulent country and needed money to make a new life somewhere else if war broke out Jesus demanded that they surrender all their possessions. He said in Luke 14 that no king going to war sends his men out without making sure that they can stand up to the enemy so in the same way nobody can be his disciple without giving up all his possessions. In other words, you have to go to war against what is around you to follow Christ. Note the violent imagery: it shows that the battle is going to be just as tough as real war. You have to give up your possessions to prepare for the war so that you might win it. There can be no doubt that he is not just referring to detachment from possessions here, having them but them not meaning much or anything to you. He is saying they must physically be abandoned to prepare for the battle. Detachment is what you are fighting for, it’s the goal of the war so that you will be attached only to Jesus. You must painfully and agonisingly part with everything so that you have a chance of really being detached for giving up possessions does not mean you don’t love them any more. You give them up so that you can stop loving them. That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is also saying that nearly the whole of Christianity is a fake for they ignore his directions. He said that nobody is a disciple of his unless he gives up everything. Jesus said that he who was not for him was against him and you need to be a disciple of his to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Obviously then there is no salvation for anybody who does not abandon all he has. Jesus did ask his disciples to do that – they were called just to drop everything and follow him.  He told Matthew just to leave his job and follow him for example. So all must be forsaken for Jesus Christ. A wife can be more dangerous than material things for all materialists are unhappy and it is easier to prefer your wife to Jesus than your money so by implication Jesus is advocating celibacy as well. This kind of morality indicates an extreme fanaticism in Jesus, his followers and his fans. Like many fanatics they might have been able to hide it well just like somebody acting normally doesn’t mean they are sane.
That people listen to this being read in the Catholic liturgy and then take religious leaders seriously is astonishing for it makes it plain that the leaders only pick and choose what they like out of Jesus’ teaching and then claim to be his honest representatives! 

Cult leaders try to cut or weaken family ties. Jesus performed an extreme example of this tactic. 
Jesus once asked a man to follow him. The man said that he would but that he wanted to bury his father first. Jesus said that the dead should be left to bury their own dead.
Some say that the reason for the reply was that the man was making an excuse which was why Jesus said that the dead should bury their own dead. The dead is either the dead in the graves - if Jesus meant these then he was more than sarcastic and was saying that he didn’t care if the old man was never buried for the dead can’t bury – or he meant the spiritually dead should bury their literal dead. Which? The answer was blunt and cruel no matter what it means and the man would have been insulted by it so it is most likely that Jesus was saying that the real dead should bury the father! Take the literal interpretation when it should be the one and there is no reason not to take it. The Gospel would say if Jesus did not mean that corpses should bury the father.
Plus Jesus had never taught the concept of spiritual death. This is the state of being estranged from God which is described as death for it is death to a relationship with God. Therefore we cannot take dead as meaning spiritually dead.

Some say that if the man means that he has to attend his father’s funeral soon and others say he means that he has to live with his father until his father dies. But it is obvious that he is most likely to have meant the former for he would not have spoken as if he had a funeral to attend. When the story is put in the gospel for our “edification” it shows that the argument that the story does not prove that Jesus was evil for he could have had a mysterious reason for commanding what he commanded is false for we have no Jesus to tell us when to break the rules now.

Christians say that Jesus wanted the man to drop everything and follow him for a purpose that was unique to the situation. This would be an indirect good purpose but God should look after these purposes himself for he has magic power. The purpose could have been creating new disciples for Jesus. The man could have tried to bring his father’s friends and family to Jesus. Christian excuses would make one vomit. Jesus never hinted that anybody was justified in not following him. This idea that some had big sacrifices to make that are not expected of everybody else is false.

Anybody like Jesus who told lies and rewarded vices would necessarily have to promote strife and false unity which is a cover for division.

Jesus sanctioned the war-mongering Mosiac Law.  He was clear his intention was to fulfil or keep it.  Thus if he contradicted it we should see that it was not intentional.  Not once did he say the law was wrong but said whoever watered it down would be punished by God.

Jesus asserted that anyone who did not listen to his message deserved to be burned alive (Matthew 10:14). He was willing to destroy the faith of others in their teachers and in their cult for he wanted them to listen to him. Yet he forbade his disciples to listen to anyone trying to destroy their faith who could be able to. Even today Christians are given the same advice. Jesus was saying that he was good for forbidding Christians to expose their faith to danger though he expected others to expose their faith to danger from God. When you can get accurate information there is no sense or goodness in hiding from those who are allegedly wrong. How a man could say he alone should be heeded when somebody will come along with better credentials than him could be called humble, caring and saintly is an unanswerable question.

Jesus taught that we are all sinners (Mark 10:18). He authorised the practice of making social pariahs of some sinners (Matthew 18:15-18). He saw sin as infinite ingratitude for the infinite love God bears for you so all sin is infinitely bad in so far as it is an insult to God. It is deserving of everlasting punishment which can be the only price for infinite sin. The bad results of sin are another issue. For Jesus, a discreet act of adultery is as bad as public scandal. So it is hypocrisy and bullying to pick on some sinners instead of others. If Christians will stand before Christ the Judge, then they can tell him, “Let me into Heaven, Lord, despite my many sins for they are no worse than your own”. Didn’t he befriend sinners himself? Christians say it is right to shut a person out if it brings them to their senses and wrong if it does not. That is their feeble attempt at justifying Jesus. The truth is that nobody knows how or when anyone will change.  Jesus said that it was right not to judge and then he permits the opposite! If I assume divorce is always bad which is an extreme position and condemn divorce I am condemning the people who divorce too. Why? Because I arrogantly take it for granted that the faith I have created is correct. I won’t see it just as my opinion.

Jesus told the apostles that he spoke in parables to prevent understanding among the outsiders. If that is true then the stories about crowds coming to hear him are fiction for you don’t come to listen to a man who can’t speak plainly to you. The parable of the seed was harmless so Jesus would not have wanted to hide what it said. Mark testified that Jesus was lying when he said he wanted to reserve the understanding of his doctrine to his disciples for anybody could figure out what the parable meant (Mark 4:33,34). Jesus wanted to encourage division and ignorance.

Jesus said that sin prevents conversion to his brand of religion not ignorance so if a person hears the gospel and does not believe it, it is because they hate God (John 3:21; 7:17). He said, “Whoever is of God listens to God. [Those who belong to God hear the words of God.] This is the reason that you do not listen [to those words, to Me]: because you do not belong to God and are not of God or in harmony with Him” (John 8:47). Lots of people know by experience that this is not true even if they do believe in sin. This ethical teaching is also a slander against those who won’t follow him and incites Christians to hatred against them. That is the end of the Christian fantasy about Jesus being humble and fair.

Jesus was not the prince of peace predicted by Isaiah.

Jesus’ hatred of sexuality and his desire to restrict it to marriage for life causes a lot of trouble in families today and rips them apart. In the guise of protecting family life, his law really seeks to foment resentment and harshness while keeping up appearances.  
Some scholars hold that Jesus might have been married but he was definitely celibate at least in public at the time of his alleged ministry.

He smeared homosexuals accusing them of doing wrong without evidence. He did this when he said that sex outside marriage was immoral and that marriage was for one man and one woman for life.

His not blessing gay marriage is sufficient proof of his unfairness – it was vital in those unscientific times for gays to avoid promiscuity for many diseases that are curable now were fatal then.

The abuses of homosexuality do not prove that it is wrong.

Its alleged unnatural nature does not prove it wrong either for we have to fight nature for it is red in tooth and claw and far from sacred all the time. Is it natural to live in houses or to wear clothes? Nobody can find a reason they believe for being against homosexuality.

Jesus forbade divorce under all circumstances. This was cruel. He could have protected marriage by making divorce hard to obtain. If he allowed it for adultery then he was encouraging adultery. This was arbitrary because he was implying that adultery was an attempt to break the marriage contract but so is hating your partner and everybody does that at times. He wanted to be cruel and condone adultery and hypocrisy at the same time.

Even sexual thoughts were forbidden (Matthew 5). He believed that if you thought about being in the sack with somebody that it is the same as doing it in reality because the thoughts seem to be real to you and you think they are real. Obviously, it must be a sin to fall in love and to have sexual thoughts even under conditions in which they will not force you to do something you regret. This by implication forbids masturbation for how could it be a sin to awaken lust if masturbation is okay and done soon after? Jesus hypocritically preferred a man to be obsessed with lust instead of getting rid of it. One of the favourite tricks of cult-leaders was to say that certain things everybody does are sins to make people feel guilty to keep them running to the Church for comfort.

Jesus lived in an age in which girls were married very young when they were unable to give proper consent. Brides were often thirteen years of age (page 35, Putting Away Childish Things). Jesus did nothing about this disgusting custom in which young girls were callously raped after being roped into marriage when they were immature and children. He as good as sanctioned legalised paedophilia. This was to hurt the girls for getting married and to sully the marriage bed. There is no excuse for him because we all see faults in our customs and he would have been no exception. He upheld marriage and forbade divorce even though the wife was married without her consent to her husband when she was a child in her early teens and then raped on the wedding night by her husband. You can’t get a stronger approval of child-abuse than that.

Jealousy was what was wrong with Jesus and nothing else.

Christianity says that sexual sin deserves everlasting torture. Traditionally, since all deserve to suffer for their sins it has been believed to be less bad to hurt a person than to have sex with them. That is why Christianity tends to be obsessed with sexual sin and be anti-sex.
Cult victims usually have little self-esteem. Sometimes the cult leader tries to make them feel good about themselves but only in so far as they do what he wants. All cults frown upon the self-esteem that comes from keeping your own identity.
Jesus was an extreme case of a cult leader who tried to control people by putting them down and getting themselves to put themselves down. 
Jesus stated that humility requires behaving like a slave (Luke 17:7-8). He approved of this behaviour (page 377, Reason and Belief). Christian humility entails making yourself worse than what you are.
He said that concern for what God wants alone matters not what you want. He said we are all sinners and said sin must be hated intensely so much that it is like gouging out your eye to stop you lusting. He said this to simple people who would have taken it literally so that was how it was meant.


Nobody can deny that Jesus used very irresponsible wording if he did not mean what he said.  He is still to blame.  The number of Christian cults that have arisen because of the cultic teachings of Jesus Christ is great. Many mainstream Christian leaders did override family values for faith and appealed to Jesus for support.  The Church murdered Jewish parents and took their children and raised them as Catholics.


The claim of some that they put God first which means they serve their families better reminds us of those people who say, "I love myself first and foremost and that is why I am so good to others."  In reality they look down on their families and have to direct the love away from them to somebody else be it God or themselves.  The fact remains that their behaviour is not motivated to help the family.  It is luck not the motive that ensures no harm is done.  But often harm is done.  Many children suffer at the hands of godly parents and narcissistic mothers and fathers. 


Nobody who serves their family but only for God and not the family can know their godly motive makes them better people.  What about atheists or the religiously indifferent who are excellent parents?  Isn't it boastful to say how great of a parent you are because of your faith?  It is arrogant for nobody can be sure enough that there is a God or that Christianity is true!  It is not goodness to give your heart to God more than the baby in the cot in front of you.  One suspects that those who say they do all they do for God are lying.  It would be too unnatural.
Jesus was a cult leader if he existed. Christianity has caused a lot of trouble by promoting the gospels as the word of God.   People who revere cultic books as the word of God could restore Christianity’s position as a top cult if they had the power to do so and dared do so.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas. Dublin, 1995
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1969
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stoneyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Objections to Christian Belief, DM Mackinnon, HA Williams, AR Vidler and JS Bezzant, Constable, London, 1963
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1974
Robert Schuller, Satellite Saint or High Flying Heretic, Cecil Andrews, Take Heed Publications, Belfast
The Hard Sayings of Jesus, FF Bruce Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1983
The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1993
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
Why I am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, New York, undated