Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Demons, being evil entities, are attracted to their own kind", Jean Williams, Winning With Witchcraft, page 86.


The Church says that the miracles of Jesus, magical events that indicate that God worked through him, prove he was the sinless Son of God that he claimed to be and that we should obey him as our king.


This doctrine is astonishing and grossly offensive for there are no accounts of Jesus bandaging people or giving away his dinner. He simply just did a spell to cure 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.
Jesus stated that if he testifies to himself then his testimony is false in the Gospel of John. Christians said he meant that if he testifies to himself then his testimony is not necessarily true - see Knox in his book Difficulties page 97. But that is not what Jesus said. Jesus meant that if somebody makes huge claims with no evidence then they are liars. We all know he was right about that. In John 8:14 Jesus states that though he is giving unsupported testimony for himself that his testimony is true. He contradicts what he said. But he indicates that his exorcism were not evidence that he really was the Son of God.
If the miracles of Jesus really happened that still does not mean we should believe in him and worship him. The evidence indicates that if the miracles happened the Devil was to blame. Christians say that convincing psychics get their information from the Devil and use it to deceive. If the gospels are as convincing as Christians say how do they know that the Devil did not guide the evangelists in their deceptions so that persuasive gospels would be made?

Jesus never convincingly demonstrated any ability to tell the future even though he said the Law of Moses was right in all it said for it was ultimately authored by God just like it claimed. The prophecies he made about his crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem were written down after the event and the remaining prophecies are for the end of the world. The Law stated that any prophet who gets all his predictions right but who makes one error is a fraud (Deuteronomy 18). This says that anybody who claims to be getting instructions and predictions from God is a liar if he makes a mistake because God does not make mistakes. It also implies that a prophet must make prophecies for there is no other way to be sure. It says that miracles are not enough for to get loads of prophecies right would be a miracle even if a few are inaccurate. So Jesus offered miracles as evidence for his claims to be Godís spokesperson. Jesusí own scriptures tell us to be wary of Jesus! Anyway we are told by Jesus to look at him to learn about God. But we should be surer that God exists than that Jesus was who he said he was which means it is blasphemy against God and the Holy Spirit which Jesus said was unpardonable to let even Jesus tell you what to think about God. That is really putting Jesus before God even if he is God for we donít know. The Christians say we must know Jesus to know God which makes it far worse. We donít know Jesus Ė we just know what people said about him so the messier it gets. We might believe but that doesnít justify it for we can be surer God exists than that Jesus was who and what he claimed to be.
Jesusí preference for miracles than for prophecy shows he was a fraud. He made no provable prophecies that show the marks of being supernatural. He certainly failed the tests spelled out by the Law of Moses which he declared to be his mentor and credential. He mistakenly thought a resurrection from the dead would be enough to mark him out as the son of God and saviour of the world. The Law denies this.


Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that whoever calls his brother a fool, raca, will go to Hell unless he repents.  Jesus called his Jewish brothers, the Pharisees fools in Matthew 23:17.  This was a clear case of raca for he did not need to call them that and after saying that the people should respect the teaching of the Pharisees for its Moses and God's teaching.  If Jesus wants to go to Hell that is up to him.  Calling several brothers fools is sure to get you to Hell better than just calling one a fool.


The Jewish religious teachers who knew a thing or two about religion said of Jesus in Mark 3:22: ĎHe is possessed by Be-elízebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.í  They could not call him possessed unless they thought he really was.  To call him possessed was unnecessary and actually an indication of compassion and denies Jesus could be responsible for his actions.  If they wanted to slander Jesus they would have said, "He is a disciple of the prince of demons and that is how he casts out demons."
When the Jews suggested that Jesusí exorcisms were just tricks of the Devil Jesus said they were not for Satan could not cast out Satan and destroy his own kingdom. This tells us that the Devil cannot have a kingdom without possessing people which implies that most people must be demon-possessed. Since he tempts all he must possess all. They can blame the Devil and not themselves then for their sins. The teaching proves that Jesus used fear and terror to derange people and manipulate them so that they hardly knew what was real. Moreover, Jesus knew the Devil could cast out demons under certain circumstances for he would only be sending them to somebody else anyway. Jesus lied. Whoever is not against the Devil is for him. Not once did any gospel verify that anybody Jesus was cured of a Devil stayed cured forever. Jesus said a demon will come back if a man is not holy enough which is a good excuse for a fake exorcist who fails so he must have needed the excuse. Jesus was a false prophet and when one of them does exorcisms is enough to prove that he is using the Devil to do them if the Devil exists. Jesus even went as far as to say that anybody suspecting that the Devil was doing his miracles would never be saved so he was going to make sure that people would be afraid to think about his miracles. He was the one that said the Devil is very crafty.

Jesus dangerously implied that the Devil cannot have a kingdom without possessing people. This is a terrifying idea and if we are demon possessed how can we know what is real or true? How can we know that Jesus was the good prophet he said he was? The Bible speaks of the devil as being the real god of this world and who specialises in making people blind to the truth which is Christianity (2 Corinthians 4:4). In other words, he is not being said to be divine but the world is treating him as its God. When Satan is so powerful and is the god of the world and canít have a kingdom without possessing then most possessions are discreet. The possessed donít feel possessed. But Satan is controlling their feelings so they feel free. He is controlling their thinking and they think they are free. He sees no good in scaring people unnecessarily but in manipulating them to make them evil and harden their hearts against God.  Jesus treated the scribes and Pharisees despite their respectability and seeming goodness as the biggest emissaries of Satan not possessed people or prostitutes or tax collectors. This was because the scribes and Pharisees specialised in the most dangerous evil of all, evil that looks good and is disguised as good.
To me, a man who thinks everybody else is possessed must feel possessed himself!


Jesus went as far as to imply the accusers themselves had an unforgiveable sin - they blasphemed the Holy Spirit.  The claim that this sin refers to an ingrained inability to repent is nonsense.  How can that be called blasphemy which means saying sacrilegious things?  Luke is clear that the context is blasphemy as in blasphemy.  The idea is that that they insulted God so gravely that he will not forgive them even if they want it.  They now belong to the demons themselves.

The demons Jesus cast out of the Gerasene demoniac (Luke 8) pleaded for Jesus to send them into pigs rather than send them back to the abyss and he obliged. They went into the pigs but the pigs then drowned themselves. The demons Jesus put out of the Gerasene man were wrong to think he was going to send them back to the pit Ė they didnít realise he was going to give them the bodies of the pigs. It is not said that he meant for the pigs to drown themselves. But that is what happened. And we can be sure Jesus must have known that the pigs would go berserk. If you put mad demons into pigs what do you expect? Jesus facilitated the possession of the pigs. It is strange how people fear Satan sending demons to them when the Bible says Jesus controls what they do!
We read in Matthew 12 that Jesus taught that when a demon leaves a man it searches for a new home and if it canít find one it comes back to the man. When it finds the manís house meaning his life tidied up it gets seven others worse than itself and they all possess the man so he ends up worse than he was at the start.
Some say the tidied up stands for the man having himself prepared for demons to make their home in him. Others say it means that the man is purified and holy.
The man would be unlikely to want the demons back so the tidying means getting rid of all that makes you unholy. When you are tidied you are holy.
The man would be in the same position and state as somebody that was never possessed so why him and not somebody else?
The metaphor of tidiness implies that the man is now good. If the man was evil, the metaphor of untidiness would be appropriate.
Jesus then meant that a holy person can become possessed.
Jesus is telling us these things.
1.     The demon can come back to a good man and take him over and even bring its friends. So the only reason it couldnít possess anybody else was because they were too full of demons so there was no room for another.
2. It tells us that the demons are desperate to live in bodies and most people are possessed.
3. It tells us that since we all sin that sin will let demons in far easier than a demon will get back into a man who was saved from it and who became a decent man.
4. Jesus added that the generation he belonged to was evil and would have the same fate as the man who got rid of demons and got them back with more parasite demons with them for company (Matthew 12:45). Jesus made the demons seem to be the power that rules the world. This could only attract people to consort with them for material favours.

Jesus taught that anybody who dies in a state of estrangement from God will suffer forever in Hell. This was a very serious slander for nobody could be bad enough to go forever to a place where there is no joy and no love. Anybody that says that they could be, is kidding himself. You need infinite proof to say that anybody deserves suffering that lasts forever or infinitely. And when there is no evidence whatsoever for free will that is free enough to choose such an unspeakable fate of everlasting despair the doctrine is plainly reprehensible. We cannot prove by experience or logic that we really have free will at all. Animals and drunks are not free and feel free. To say this power whose abuse lands you in Hell forever is to say something really malicious. You could feel free and still be programmed by the environment. Jesus obviously hoped that sinners who die will rot in Hell forever. Even if we have free will we cannot assume it can go as far as to choose that kind of fate.

Jesus invented the doctrine of everlasting punishment which implies that the damned should suffer for their sins forever though it would do no harm if they did not suffer that long. We need punishment or crime control in this world and it is a necessary evil to prevent chaos. Thus he ensured that Christianity would hate sinners and the damned however vehemently it would pretend it does not. It is pure evil for any Christian to say he believes that a homosexual or adulterer or heretic should suffer forever in Hell when the evidence is not good enough for that tells us only that he would like to see this happen to sinners like that. Yet Jesus himself is at the root of this evil.

Jesus supported God's Jewish Law despite its cruelties. God gave parents the legal right to have their lazy drunkard sons killed by stoning (Deuteronomy 21). How can we trust a man like that?
Jesus cured only those who were in his presence. If you were a blind man and you got to Jerusalem a day late you didn't get cured. Jesus was cruel for upsetting vulnerable people like that. Curing those in his presence shows he was healing them not because he cared about them but because he wanted to show-off. He is like a teacher who buys sweets for the children when half of them have gone on a nature walk. If the children are sick or disabled you can see how much worse it is.

Jesus made out that we are more likely to sin than do good. The Church says we were born sinful and that the effects of this make sure we will struggle with sin all our life. This demolishes the freedom defence. It says evil and sin are our fault not Godís for we abused his gift of free will and he couldnít stop us. God supposedly gave us free will so that we could love him or hate him. If so, then he should not be making us biased towards sin or creating weakness in us that is drawn to sin. We should be able to live sinless lives even if many of us donít. Jesusí evil God ordains sin and evil to take place.

The Devil wanted Jesus to jump off the Temple and arrange for angels to catch him safely to convert the people. The Devil was not asking Jesus to focus on show for he never said that. He was not asking Jesus to convert the people the easy way for he never said that either. He was just asking Jesus to try and force God to save him. That was why Jesus replied that nobody must tempt God. If Jesus had been God or the Son of God gifted with miracle power he would not have been tempting God to save him for the power was under his control. By working miracles, Jesus had given into this temptation. The Devil won.
Matthew 10:13 tells us that Jesus believed that his powers worked by magic. In it, Jesus tells the disciples that if they confer peace on a deserving house they are in it will be blessed with peace but if the house is undeserving the peace will come back to the disciples.
This makes no sense unless the prayer that confers the peace is really a spell. A spell is sending magic energy out of you. Jesus wants the disciples to cast spells for peace and the spell will bless them themselves by coming back to them if there is nobody peaceable who will let the spell work. Jesus gave the disciples this power so he was claiming he did his wonders by magic.
This would bring him under condemnation for the Torah condemned all magic-making as being opposed to God and deserving of death. Sorcerers even ones who did mostly good were banned from the midst of the Hebrews.
Jesus does not say he cures people in the gospel. He says faith did it. Christians say that he did this to stress that weak faith or faith that cherry-picks is not on and he demands a faith that is as strong as certainty even though it cannot be 100% certainty. This interpretation says Jesus heals through faith. But what if you imagine faith is a magical power? If Jesus thought that then he was a magician. Then it is true to say that faith did the healings through Jesus and not vice versa. Jesus did mean something like that for at that time, faith in him was not as important as it was after his alleged death for sinners and resurrection to eternal life. They made faith in Jesus a supreme requirement.
Jesus made the equivalent of nine hundred bottles of good wine at Cana when the guests were already drunk (page 6, A Christian Faith for Today, W Montgomery Watt, Routledge, London, 2002). This is reported in the gospel of John which has it remarked that because of this the good wine that Jesus created from water was served at the end of the feast when usually the bad wine was given out at this point for the guests didnít know any different having had too much. This is a miracle blessing the sin of drunkenness.
Jesus and the early Christians heralded his resurrection as his proof that what he said he was, was the truth. So Satan cannot raise the dead but perhaps Satan hid his body from view though it was there or disintegrated it? Satan can do apparitions or seeming ones which is why even Christians say that a bodily resurrection is necessary and visions of Jesus are simply not enough for the world is full of conflicting vision stories. The fact that Jesus never drew attention to these problems shows that both he and his disciples were all hell-bent on believing in the resurrection no matter what and did not mind if their obstinacy pleased the Devil. If whoever is not against Jesus is for him like he said then it is the same for those who are not against Satan. The dishonesty of Jesusí claim that the Devil could not have been behind the resurrection scam shows that he may have been. Christians will reply that the good fruits of the resurrection and belief in it prove that Satan wasnít behind it. But you canít believe in everything that seems to have good fruits and it is precisely arguments over fruits that could go on forever that we have different religions in the first place.
The fruits of the resurrection are only superficially good. Christians lie to themselves and everybody else that they believe in Christ and therefore in the resurrection and that it is a personal relationship they have with Christ that gives them faith that the resurrection happened. They believe in the gospels not in Christ. If John says Mary is a prostitute and I believe that it is John I believe. If Mary tells me herself then it is Mary I believe. Christianity is just a man-made faith.
Jesus said I should put God first, or love him with all my heart and mind. He said it was the greatest and most important commandment. This proved that he was a fraud for that is an evil doctrine. It translates as put God as Jesus or the pope understands him first so that Jesus or the pope will be as good as God to you for you will be doing what they want. That is what priests and clergy and popes are all after. The doctrine is responsible for the remarkable immorality that exists among Christians and can make it worse easily for it is so fanatical unnatural and nobody wants to obey it. How can you love a being you cannot prove that much as much as that? If they are not as bad as they can be that is in spite of the doctrine not because of it. If you really love God you will have little excuse for being in the wrong religion for if God comes first then the job that comes first is making sure you have the truth and living that truth afterwards. The doctrine is pro-sectarianism and accuses those who endure sectarian harassment of asking for it. This is what Jesus and Moses and Muhammad made the foundation of morality. They put the world on a treadmill. They set their followers in opposition to nature and reality and truth. They were on the side of the Devil they said they hated. The gospels donít say at all how the body vanished from the tomb. They only say it was raised up which could have happened in the presence of the thieves. Thus Jesusí big proof failed.
If Jesusí miracles are so satanic then the ones at Lourdes and Fatima which pretend to support the veracity of the miracle stories about Jesus and his doctrine are just as bad. If Jesus falls they fall too. The Christians have childish replies to those who suggest that the Jesus miracles might have been satanic. They go on about the miracles bringing people closer to God and doing good and inspiring people to do good. They know fine well that it is not miracles that do that but how people choose to respond to them. Is a Buddhist miracle that denies that Christianity is true to be accepted just because people take it as an inspiration to convert to a better life? Christians say no. Many people believe that natural miracles such as self-esteem training and New Age Philosophy are better miracles for more effective. The book, A Course in Miracles, does not bother with the supernatural but uses a commonsense and mystical approach to self-improvement wearing a Christian veneer. Christians reject the experiences of its followers as valid for they donít like these philosophies. It is just plain dishonest to say the miracles of Jesus are from God for they did good and then say that Satan does good with A Course in Miracles to trick people and make them think they are right with a God who doesnít consider them right with him.
The Christians have no evidence that Jesus really changed lives to any unusual extent. What lives changed since his time are irrelevant for that could happen accidentally. If Satan makes a person seem like a saint who does miracles that do noticeable harm and the real damage is carefully hidden that person will seem like a saint to future generations. Despite Satanís purpose, they could end up inspiring conversions and sincerity and goodness. The apostles of Jesus are enigmas to us and we donít know enough about them to be able to make an exception of them. For example, the stories about them are legends full of absurd miracles and contradictions. The Christians are just guessing and pretending to sound smart.
No Catholic priest broke ranks to stop and expose his paedophile co-workers in the priesthood. And this despite the fact that they teach that we must suffer to the point of bloodshed for the cause of justice. The whole child-abuse abomination was covered up and steps were taken to move the abusers around to help them find new flesh to violate. The priests during all this time were smug in their virtue and ate their communion every day - eating communion is a declaration that you believe yourself to be righteous and clean from sin and right with God. They judged sinners in the confessional - this too declares that the priest is claiming to be holy enough so that he can be in a position to judge in the place of Christ. Apologies are plenty. Their apologies are hollow. It is hard to believe that people who are so cold could really be sorry. And especially when this smug unjustified sense of righteousness and holiness was carried for years and decades. The evil of the priesthood is proof that religion is self-deceit. It shows that the biggest number of religionists - if not all - must be deceiving themselves. Christianity certainly leads to trouble. Christians hunt for miracles and end up tricked and robbed by evangelists and visionaries. Sick people die for they depend on miracles more than on their doctors and they are let down. Even the Christians themselves admit that most apparitions and miracle claims are untrue or doubtful. The sacraments of the Church are supposed to heal you of your evil weakness and make you a servant of God and wipe away sin. But we have seen by the results that there is nothing special about Catholic holiness and and indeed it is just sham. All that to me indicates that the sacraments of the Church do much more than fail to work. It really does look like that some twisted and dark power that likes to hide itself in the robes of virtue exists in the Church and is passed on like a virus by the sacraments. The sacraments are a clear sign that if they impart supernatural power, then this power is not good, it is evil. It is from Hell. If the sacraments have no good results that can be traced to their power then they are pacts with the Devil. Satan would want people to undergo ineffective therapy. The results of the sacraments indicate that Jesus was the emissary of Satan masquerading as the emissary of God if it is true that Jesus empowers the sacraments.
The Church teaches that doctrine and teaching is important but the healing power of the sacraments is more important. For example, the imbecile will be helped by the sacraments though he can't learn many doctrines. Parents stupidly think they should have their children baptised with a view to having them sent to Catholic schools to educate them as good people. They focus on the teaching aspect. But this is misplaced. The main focus is the healing power. Indeed it is the only focus for the Church declares that all the teaching in the world will do no good unless your heart is opened to God by the supernatural power of the sacraments. We are said to be closed to God by nature and we need his grace to get us into a position where we can choose him and his ways and receive his virtue-infusing power. The priests - because they wish to manipulate - don't warn parents to have the right reasons for having their child enrolled in Catholicism and its schools.
The Jewish Law as given by God specified a penalty of stoning to death for the following offences only. Consorting with familiar spirits (not necessarily evil spirits - just spirits) Leviticus 20:27. Cursing or blasphemy - Leviticus 24:10-23. False prophets who encourage idolatry - Deuteronomy 13:5-10. Adult son who is incorrigibly out of control - Deuteronomy 18:18-21. Adultery - Deuteronomy 22:21-24. Rape - Leviticus 20:10. In John 8 the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus because they say he blasphemed. In John 10:33 they do the same thing because they say Jesus is making himself out to be God. But Jesus never claimed to be God. If he did the Jews would not have accused him of blasphemy but of being a false prophet who was trying to seduce people into idolatry. That required stoning - read Deuteronomy 13:5-10. It is most likely that if there is some truth in the reports that Jesus was nearly stoned it is because he was into familiar spirits.
Jesus in teaching the doctrine that demons can possess people did irreparable harm. Throughout the Middle Ages people were put to death and burnt at the stake for they were thought to have had demons in them. The Church performed exorcisms to cast them out but often they got no better and sometimes far worse. In such cases it was thought that it was because the possessed person didnít want rid of the demons for the Church claims that though it prays over newly baptised that demons will never get them some people want the demons so the prayers can do nothing to keep them out. Such persons were hounded as witches and warlocks and burnt to death. This is quite logical. A person who willingly accepts demonic infestation will have supernatural powers and the only way to stop them murdering or getting others possessed is to kill them. Jesus would have known of people being murdered because they were possessed in his day and why people felt they had to be killed. And still he promoted the belief. He was a dangerous fanatic.
Up to not that long ago, insane people were thought to be possessed and that beating them up in asylums would help them. Many of them were starved. Many exorcisms have made insane people far worse. It made them believe they had a demon and added to their problems. All people who are mentally unwell and who have had a religious background fear that they may have a demon or a demon is influencing them. This only upsets them more and makes them worse. It damages their belief in their treatment and so not only does it make them worse but it makes it harder for them to get better. Jesus was to blame for this evil. The Church knows all this and still refuses to put people before dogma, put what you can touch before what you assume or believe is true. Or was it those who invented him? Those who follow him are no better!
There are two trained priests set aside for exorcising in every diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. They step in when medical treatment of the insane fails and when a possession may be the cause. But first the psychiatrists must declare the patientsí insanity to be inexplicable. One time the apostles came up to Jesus saying they found a man outside the group that went about with Jesus casting out demons and forbade him. But Jesus stood up for the man. So Jesus agreed with people assuming that mental illness was possession in those days. He didnít use psychiatrists for there were none and medical science then was nearly totally flawed. The message is clear: it is a sin for the Catholic Church to deny that mentally ill people are necessarily possessed. It is a sin to determine if the person is possessed or not. If they are mentally ill they are possessed. This is a terribly dangerous doctrine. The Church simply refuses to explicitly teach what Jesus commanded in this thing because it knows how much harm can be done by making a person with mental illness think they may be possessed and has seen deaths and suicides over such teachings. So it wants to look after its good name by restricting exorcism. But nevertheless, it teaches the evil doctrine by implication every time it says that the gospel Jesus was the infallible Son of God. And besides the Church does not deny that in any case of mental illness possession on some level Ė perhaps a very weak one - cannot be ruled out.
The brain is so complex and some people fake mental illness so the idea that a mental illness being declared inexplicable permits the Church to perform an exorcism is scandalous. It should be made illegal and these exorcists should be forced by law to abandon their exorcist roles. They should be sued by the patients they work with. To tell a person with brain disorders that show up that they may be possessed is bad enough. But to tell a person with one that doesnít show up is far worse for at least when the cause is known something can be done about it and it is not as scary for the patient. It is dishonest of the Church to parade seemingly successful exorcisms as evidence that the Church is true while saying the failed ones were just down to some unknown form of mental disorder just because they failed. That is making the evidence fit what you want to believe. Medical science could never agree with an exorcism for it says that there is so much about the brain that we donít understand even today. The exorcisms are just sacrificing innocent people to fanatical religious dogma. The Church may wait until mental illness is declared inexplicable before doing anything but inexplicable only means it canít be explained yet not that it is necessarily supernatural. It still does not give the Church the right to attempt exorcism. The entire belief in exorcism and possession is evil and whoever promotes it is either stupid or a fanatic.
Exorcism is a feature of magic more than religion. It is obvious that it is a form of magic spell. The Torah or Law of Moses in the Bible condemns magic so obviously when Jesus came along with his exorcisms and the Church they must be in violation of what God decreed when he gave this Torah to Moses. Exorcisms are indeed an attempt to use Satan to cast out Satan!