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?




"I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." Revelation 2:23
No psychologist will tell you that prayer will help you stop hating somebody.  They will give you ways of looking at the other person that help you stop wanting to hurt them.  When Christianity claims to be all about prayer it obviously thinks prayer alone will help.  A religion that speaks such nonsense in the face of such a serious problem as hate is a disgrace.


A religion that does not want to do anything real about hate may be following alleged divine revelations or false gods.


The Christian false god is Jesus and he is a good example of a hate catalyst god.

The claim made by Christians that Jesus loves you is a pack of lies. Jesus hates you!


Jesus definitely did not pretend to hate sins as if they were separated from the sinner. He went for the sinner’s jugular.

Whoever welcomes one child in my name welcomes me. If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then

I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

The gospels are clear that on judgement day he would say something like “Away from me you evil doers; better for you that you had never been born.” 


In the story of the sheep and the goats, Jesus says he will send the goats to Hell for not clothing the naked so it is not hateful obnoxious monstrous people he is talking about.  You don't have to be totally bad to get sent off to everlasting punishment.  Remember why he chose sheep and goats to illustrate the point.  Sheep and goats are closely related and similar.
In Mark 9:19 Jesus tells his hearers that he cannot bear them any more and cannot stand them. 1 Corinthians 13:2, Paul who was Jesus' morality model, as good as called anybody who does not love “nothing.” Don’t think it refers to those who do not love at all. Those who are called unloving are unloving to some and not others. Or their love for anybody is not strong. But they still love.

The Christian narrative that Jesus went out in search of female sinners to spend time with them is lies. The woman who washed his feet, the Samaritan woman, the adulteress who was about to get stoned – Jesus went to none of them. In fact he was abusive to a woman who came to him for help with her daughter.

He lied that you can punish and hate the sin but not the sinner. If you try that you will find you are unable to love anybody either. How could you love somebody if you are going to hate them for doing wrong against God? You are set up to hate them.

Jesus said that no man can serve two masters. He said that he will love one master and hate the other.
He went on to say you cannot serve God and money. So we see that to love money is to hate God.
The Church says he didn't mean hate by the word hate. He only meant prefer less. But surely it would be possible to love God and money equally. Jesus meant hate. He meant hate as in willing evil to happen to another for evil's sake.
The implication is that the atheist or anyone who does not love God then hates him. That person is evil. He implied the same thing about anybody who loves their child or lover or whoever most instead of loving God most.
The psychological lesson from all this is that for Jesus there is only love or hate. No in-between. He has not grasped the fact that there is a third - indifference. Indeed, indifference, not hate, is considered the true opposite of love.




Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:1–5).

Pilate had murdered Jews who were performing animal sacrifices. So Pilate not only murdered but committed sacrilege. That aside, Jesus makes the point that just because God let this terrible deed be done to them does not mean that the rest of the people are any better or worse sinners than they. This was people suffering because of an act of man. He then speaks of natural evil. The tower naturally fell on people. This was not an act of man. Again he makes the point that those who did not die that day are as bad as those who did. He warns his listeners that they can be killed by people like Pilate or die as a result of a natural accident and it will happen unless they repent.  It is a statement of the inevitability of the penalty for sin: Death. 

So he says as long as you sin you are in danger. The problem is not who is the lesser or greater sinner but that we are just sinners, Death will be the result.

He is clear that those who died at Pilate’s hands and those who died when the tower fell deserved their deaths.


He denies that the question, “Why does God let bad things happen to good people” makes any sense. He said elsewhere that there is no such thing as good people. He rejects any attempt to solve the problem of evil by saying that humanity is basically good for that guarantees failure.

He is clear that human and natural evil are invitations to the living to repent.


To suggest that people deserve God letting them being murdered or being killed naturally is a misanthrophic doctrine of the worst sort.  It is passive aggressive to take such a doctrine as true or possible.  To see accidents and murders as invitations to the living to change is callous in the extreme. What would you think of the person who thought you should tell bereaved people they should see the death as an invite to repent?  And worse - Christians say that we have to keep reaffirming repentance so even if you repent sin x you have to repent it again for repentance is not an event but a process and an attitude to be taken for life.

Jesus regarded all people as being totally depraved. Obviously then it would be too much to expect him to like anybody! The adage to love the sinner and hate the sin at the same time fails to provide an escape route. Sin reflects the kind of person I am so sin cannot be separated from me. I sin because I am bad not just because my sin is bad. My sin is me in a real sense and to hate my sin is to hate me. To say John’s homework is terrible is to call John terrible indirectly. And its being indirect doesn’t make it any less real.

A man came up to Jesus calling him good teacher. Jesus said that nobody was good only God: “Why do you call me good for nobody is good but God?” (Mark 10:17,18). Christians say that the man thought Jesus was a good man and Jesus was telling him that he could only be good if he was God. If right their interpretation would mean that all are sinners and cannot stay out of it. And the same interpretation holds true if Jesus was just telling him that his idea of good was wrong and that only God knows what good is and lives that goodness.

The man called Jesus a good teacher. Yet Jesus rejected this. It was not flattery for Jesus was famous as a teacher. The man meant it. Jesus just didn’t like being called good by anybody human for he thought that humans have an unclear idea of what good is and don’t understand real goodness as represented by almighty God. He thought humans were too sinful to have a clue about what it meant to worship God as good.

There are other interpretations but they don’t fit the Christian faith. For example, we could hold that Jesus rejected the compliment for he was a sinner like everybody else. Some say Jesus only meant that the man was flattering him and didn’t mean it which was why he rejected the compliment. But there is no hint of that in the text. You don’t say, “Why do you call me good for nobody is good but God?” to somebody that is flattering you. You say, “You flatter me.” And besides the man asked him about how to inherit everlasting life and Jesus answered him thus acknowledging him as sincere not as a flatterer.

Anybody who says sinners go to suffer forever at death wants that belief to be true for they could believe something nicer. Jesus advocated belief in such torment and said he accepted it as true. What does that say about him? If you could condone a God letting that happen to somebody you could condone anything. When you condone the workings of your invisible God you should condone the workings of your visible neighbourhood tyrant too. Fairs fair. What you see comes first.

Jesus didn't say we are to respect our neighbour as ourselves but to love our neighbour as ourselves meaning we must adore our neighbour as much as ourselves. Respect our neighbour as ourselves means we can treat a person properly despite having bad feelings for them. The Christians say that Jesus in commanding such love of neighbour did not mean that we must be crazy about everybody but only that we must treat them as we wish to be treated. They lie for he said love not respect. By asking us to do the impossible and by threatening curses and Hell and eternal torment on those who naturally fail, Jesus was putting us on an eternal treadmill from which there would be no reprieve. We would be unable to think we can do anything right or to please him. And once we start thinking that about ourselves our relationships will rapidly break down. Jesus tries to force us to be good in an impossible way. His example will drive us to force our gospels and versions of them on others. And if we can't do it, that will not stop us wanting to do it.
An evil man necessarily wants to make some people unhappy and Jesus was no exception. But let us move away from this general observation and get down to specifics.

Jesus said that the most important commandment was the one to love God with all our power. The next, love of neighbour as oneself, was the next most important and was said to be like it for loving your neighbour to please God is really just loving God with all your power or loving God alone. In Christianity, people don’t matter in themselves. This is a callous religion.

Christianity teaches that love is not feeling affection but is sacrifice for if you won’t sacrifice you prefer your pleasure to the person. Jesus taught that too. If love is not feeling but sacrifice then love is action. The more you hate the person you help the better for hate makes sure that you are devoted to their good when you do good for them for its own sake and not because of your feelings.

Jesus liked strong drink and his food. He frequented parties and fancy dinners. He told the apostles that he wanted them to be happy (John 16:24). But love is sacrifice for when you help others because you want to you are using them for you are doing it because you want to and not for them. Jesus came out against using others that way in his Sermon on the Mount. The harder life is then the better. To refuse to love as much as possible is to refuse to love at all. He commanded that we love God with all that is in us. Yet he went against and preached against these very principles when he felt like it. Popularity was what he sought. If Jesus had been the Son of God he would have been an ascetic who willed to hate people with all the emotional strength in him so that he could make the smallest deed of kindness to them a massive sacrifice of love. Feeling hate and willing evil are two separate things and the former is only sinful when it is not done for the sake of sacrifice. Satan stands for happiness while God stands for the misery of love.

Even if Jesus were God he would have had to torment himself in order to harm himself for others.

Jesus’ disciples did not fast and John’s did. Jesus explained that he would not let his own do that for they had him with them meaning that it was a time for rejoicing (Mark 2). He remarked that you do not put patches from new things unto old. And he said that his own disciples should wait until he was out of the world before fasting. Fasting was done to discipline the body. Jesus is forbidding his apostles to do that. Perhaps he thought that fasting was not about discipline but about pain for the sake of pain. If it was party-time, as he said, then after his death should be a bigger party for he is now with God and better at helping us than ever. When Jesus said that now was the time for celebrating he had no intention of surviving death or rising from the dead at that time. He did not even believe in life after death.

Christians tell us about the terrible things that happen in life being part of God’s good plan in other words, evil is used to bring good out of it. Jesus himself dismissed this reasoning totally when he said that we must expect him back any moment and be always ready. Obviously, Jesus thought he could come back soon and was wrong for nobody in their right mind keeps expecting a helicopter to arrive when it was to come last week and that is only days and not centuries. But anyway the point is, if Jesus can come back now it is a sin to say that this accident or that person getting terminally ill has a purpose for you are supposed to act as if you are not sure what is going to happen in the next few minutes and that the world could end and Jesus appear. This would make life hell for anybody who believes in his God for they will have to act as if God is good and has no purpose for suffering. Cruelty like this is rare and free will is no excuse for it for there is no such thing and it does not need to be programmed to make evil possible.
The Catholic hymn, Hail Redeemer, King Divine! Has a line calling Jesus the King of Love on Calvary. Was Jesus the King of Love or the King of Hate?

Hatred is wanting to hurt another person unjustly or inappropriately. It is pretending that there is little or no value in that person. Religion says hatred is always wrong and counsels us to love our enemies.

Anger wants to hurt a person for emotional reasons. It is hatred for it is vengeful (Catechism of the Catholic Church (2302)) even though religion unintelligibly allows it as long as you do not sin though it forbids hatred (ibid 2303). It is not something going wrong that makes you angry, it is the way you respond to it that does that for worse things happen and you do not have an angry reaction. So, anger is an unnecessary evil. Anger would not be hatred if you rationally wanted to hurt the person because you loved them but it is an irrational feeling. It is always listening to the heart and not the rationality. Some things make people angry while the other equally bad or worse things do not. Anger and love are incompatible. The person who says. “I am mad at you because I love you”, is a liar and it is a lie that society and religion readily and eagerly encourage.

Hatred is needlessly wanting to hurt another person or to see them hurt. Anger wants to see pain befall another because of a feeling and not because it is right so anger is hate. Anger and love cannot go together - though you may be able to switch from one to the other. Some say that anger is wishing evil to man as far as he deserves it while hatred does not care if he deserves it but wishes it anyway (page 63, Moral Philosophy). Yet they will agree with the definition that anger is a desire for vengeance for the wrongdoing of another (page 62, Moral Philosophy). Those who make this distinction are hypocrites for they know that all desire for vengeance or retribution is unjust and fuelled by hatred because there is no proof concerning how responsible a person is for what they do and indeed no proof that they are responsible at all. They might not have free will.

Anger is hatred.

People prefer being liked to being loved for real love is a cold act of goodness or good will. Anger stops you liking a person so how could it be love?

The faith of Christ commends anger so it is inciting believers to hatred against anybody who will not love and believe their disgusting God. It says that God and faith are of supreme importance. When it allows anger for lesser things it allows even more anger for bigger things. People might say that anger is a sin for you have to judge and Jesus said that we had no right to judge. But he said we may judge but only if we are good ourselves (Matthew 7). He said that we must see clearly to judge – that is, we must be fair and not be committing what we condemn the other person for ourselves. He told the Church to judge (Matthew 18:15-17). So Jesus did permit us and encourage us to be angry. He certainly had no right to do this because we all know there are things which are neither right or wrong. There have to be when right and wrong depend on the circumstances. When he had no time for the idea of neutrality but was only interested in black and white self-righteousness he had no right to call on us to judge. He warned that his generation would face the judgment of God as would those who were unlucky enough to live until he would come back. There is real vindictiveness in anybody who talks like that when they don’t know what they are talking about. But this vindictiveness is the Bible God’s law.

Jesus said that we must love God with all our hearts and our neighbours as ourselves. God matters most and considering how much God hates sin we see how angry he would like us to be.

Jesus presented himself as an example for us. He was angry because some towns did not believe in him despite the miracles he did in them (Matthew 11:21-24).

He was angry when he told the Jews that they were hypocrites (Matthew 15:7).

Jesus went into a fury in the Temple and drove all the moneychangers out (Matthew 21:12,13; Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-17). He must have been so mad that they did not dare to gang up on him. Of course, that rampage never happened but the point is that the gospels are saying that Jesus could and would fly into a violent fury even if they only made the story up.

In Matthew 23, Jesus’ angry mouth went into overdrive when he called the Jewish leaders everything under the sun and accused them of heinous crimes. He told them they were bastards.

The Bible says that God gets angry. This anger is akin to willing what you will when you are angry instead of the emotion that occurs. God is a spirit and cannot have feelings. But if there are strong feelings involved there may be some excuse for anger.

When you approve of hatred it follows that any good you do in that spirit is just a sham. You are telling the person you help that you care about them and you do not.

In blessing anger, the Christian religion encourages rioting and killing. Nobody knows where anger will lead and many will go out of control so that they do not know what they are doing.
Jesus was vindictive if he lived. It is only those who don't know him who think they love him.
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

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire by Richard Carrier