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

New Testament commands Credulity 
The New Testament is the centre of Christianity. Christianity depends on it to learn about Jesus. Without it Jesus would be worse than a legend. But  the fact is, the New Testament is no better than a non-existent New Testament.
We must remember that the gospels report that Jesus exercised a lot of pressure on his audience and disciples.
He taught that if they stopped believing in him they would be on God's rubbish heap, Hell, to suffer for all eternity.
He said that anybody who suspected that Satan was behind any of his miracles was blaspheming the Holy Spirit and there would be no forgiveness for them in this life or the next.
In that kind of atmosphere, the witnesses of Jesus would have not just been biased in his defence but totally biased. It was the right cauldron to cook up a legend such as the resurrection of Jesus in. There has never been one as good since. The apostles (see Galatians 1) put curses called the anathema and the handing over to Satan on those who contradicted them. Jesus accused his critics of being completely bad (Matthew 12:34) - no room for loving the sinner and hating the sin if there is no good in the person at all! This was incitement to hatred.
In a pre-scientific age and with all those threats, how can we be confident in the truth of the New Testament?

Did the gospel writers and epistles want us to leave our brains outside the room when their drivel is being read to us?

The gospels
According to the New Testament, Jesusí healing work was meant to be a sign that he was of God. Nearly all of his healing works could have been natural events even if you do accept the Bible as infallible. When the gospellers picked signs that could have been natural or done by divine providence the natural way that proves they had scant regard for the truth. They wanted us to be the same.

The way Jesus and the New Testament both make the Law of Moses their main justification for their claims and even go as far as to say that Jesusí resurrection is nothing without the Law even if people see him rising (Luke 16:31). But if you go to the excellent you will see that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Law of Moses existed before it was ďfoundĒ in 621 BC while there was repair work being done in the Jerusalem Temple. A prophetess consulted to verify the book said that God told her the book was his word and immediately its laws were put into effect by the king, Josiah. The book was found by the scribe Hilkiah and many believe that he was the real author or could have found a book and altered it. A book that makes such serious demands as the Law should have had a better start-off than that and the Bible itself says that this was the way the Law came out though it naturally does not hint that Hilkiah wrote the Law or revised it. We cannot take it too seriously when that is the case. But Jesus did not let that stop him putting the Law at the fore. Anyway, in those days where were textual critics and archaeologists who could have a chance of giving evidence that the Law of Moses was authentic? They wouldnít come until the twentieth century. It was credulity to believe in the Law even if it had been well known before 621 BC. A book that has to be verified as the word of God by an obscure prophetess who could have been any old crank is plainly not the word of God at all. When it comes down to it, she is the one who is believed in more than it!

Men who had doubts and knew that doubt was no sin and still went on to forbid it are hardly worth listening to when they gave us tall stories. The Bible writers and the apostles were these men. So was Jesus if he lived.

John, the fourth gospeller, reveals his desire to make us credulous when he interprets Jesusí allegedly saving a dying boy from death but not completely from his illness (4:51-54) as a sign. What may be a coincidence is no sign. John writes stuff that is different from the other gospels and he firmly approves of the rule that one witness is not enough and yet he is the only witness to his version being correct! John was the one that stated that Jesus said that if Jesus is his own witness his testimony cannot be true for he is speaking for himself (John 5:31). So John is speaking for himself and his witness is untrue. If you believe in him at all believe that.

If Matthew believed that Josephís dream about an angel was a real vision and not just a dream that happened to be right (2) Matthew was commanding us to be credulous and so he cannot be trusted with his other miracle stories, the greater ones such as the resurrection. Jesus was the one who said that if you cannot trust anyone in small you cannot trust them in big things either.

Mark was treated by Matthew and Luke as a reliable information source though he said that Jesusí return as judge would be totally unexpected to ensure that believing people would be ready at all times and then said that certain events that believers would observe would have to take place before Jesus could come back! (13).

The gospellers knew from the Law that it did not teach life after death and yet they said that Jesus told the world that when God called himself the God of three dead prophets he said that it meant they were alive somehow (Matthew 22:32).

If they had been unbiased and objective and mature they would not have made these blunders. If they had been these three things at least two of them would have been written by independent and religiously disinterested sources so that we could be sure they are verified properly by unbiased people. Unbiased people means people who are biased towards the truth and they certainly were not those kind of people.

Jesus telling us to love God with all our minds and praising the man who gave him an intelligent answer praises only what God calls intelligence. It really praises Godís thinking and not ours. Our thinking cannot be trusted.
Reason is to be and is ignored in religion whenever it conflicts with any doctrine. Even when we were told to test the spirits, prove all things and to answer anybody who wants to know why we have hope in us it only means we must use Godís reasoning even in defiance of our own. The paradoxes of the Christian faith prove that we are expected to do that.

Peter and John
The author of 2 Peter pronounced Paulís wacky writings to be scripture. And he knew that Paul claimed to write for simple people and intended to and still there were things that were hard to understand. That should have showed him that Paul was no more inspired than he was.

John could be mental for he says that all who find no sin in themselves are deluding themselves (1 John 1).

John told the people he wrote to that he needed to warn them about heretics. And then he told them that they needed no teacher to protect them from the false teachers for the spirit inside them was guiding them into all the truth! (2). He was not saying all you need to tell you about the faith is the spirit for he would not be writing then but he is saying the spirit guides you to know that the apostolic doctrine is true. He is as good as saying there is no evidence but only an alleged testimony from God that is in reality little more than a feeling. This is the testimony from the divine that all religions say they have and they all contradict and excommunicate each other!

Revelation Ė the ultimate farce
The Book of Revelation is truly awful. Only a nutter would accept it as the word of God like its author may have done.

Its symbolism is often impenetrable making it no good. God would not make such a mistake. What sense do lines like, ďAnd the four living creatures, individually having six wings, were full of eyes all over and within [underneath their wings]Ē make? This is from Revelation 4:8. Without any evidence, these beasts are supposed by Christians to be the gospels! The Revelation claims it can be understood by the public which is why it commanded that it must be published for the fulfilment of the prophecies in it is near (22:10). When that rubbish is in the Bible that is an insult to better works that should have been in it.


It is the vice of gullibility to accept that Jesus existed or rose from the dead on the basis of the early Christian writings or to declare that he must have for these writings are Godís word. This was the very vice that created them whether it was in its authors or in the audience or both.
If Jesus told men who were gullible to proclaim his resurrection and everything else then he could hardly have really risen from the dead for at least he would have the divine power to pick decent witnesses. He might even have not existed. If we believe because of their testimony we are wrong. We actually believe because of their gullibility.

Jesus told them he spoke only the word of God and he said he believed the story of Jonah in the whale for three days was true. In this Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses which proves that since Jonahís story rested on one anonymous testimony it has to be rejected or at least not believed. One testimony is not grounds for believing in a miracle. We would believe anybody if we start saying it is for a miracle is too unusual so you need very strong evidence. This shows that the apostles would have been too easy to convince that Jesus rose from the dead. Christians say that Jesus existed before his birth and saw that the Jonah story was true and was testifying to it. There is no trace of that idea in the text.
In the gospels, Jesus behaves and talks like a normal man who had to go to the scriptures and think about things like everyone else. He does not say he knows everything Ė and the Church holds that as man Jesus did not know everything but kept what he knew as God out of his human side.
The apostles accepted the Jonah story so if they were tricked by an impostor after Jesusí death all somebody had to do was to remind them that they believed Jonah came back from the dead too and believed it on worse evidence. This was the trick David Whitmer used to get people to believe in the Book of Mormon despite the fact that the alleged translator Joseph Smith was clearly a fraud and a fake prophet and despite the fact that Whitmer had no problem saying he was both of these. Whitmer said that many things Christians believe are believed on less testimony than on the testimony of twelve men for the Book of Mormon being true.

The apostles thought that Jesus was a ghost when they saw him from their boat when he was walking on water (Mark 6). It was dark and if they had been level-headed they would have supposed that it was somebody on a raft that they could not see in the waves.

They asked Jesus to save them from drowning during a huge tempest admitting that he had the power to do it and yet they were afraid they would drown.

Thomas refused to admit that the resurrection of Jesus happened despite the evidence of his friends and the open tomb. He thought that evidence should not be heeded and that is what gullible people think for they prefer to twist the evidence and imagine evidence into existence. That is why the argument that when he testified to Jesus rising Ė a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence for we know nothing about Thomas at all and have not heard his side Ė that it must have happened when he above all people said it did, is unacceptable.

If Thomas were the only apostle to have disbelieved despite the testimonies then that reflects terribly on the rest because by accepting him as one of themselves they regard him as a reliable witness. A person who is so easily fooled is not that. They show themselves up as no better than he is. If Jesus made Thomas his apostle we know the meaning of that.

The apostles had little faith in Jesus at times for people who saw some of his powers (Matthew 8:26). They resisted strong faith in favour of weaker faith according to the gospels for they were gullible. They believed what they wanted to believe not what they should believe.

Jesus had to put the apostles in their place once for each of them wanted to be more important than the rest in matters of spirituality which explains why they let feelings and not sense tell them what to believe.

At that time, they could have died for their association with Jesus for the Gospels say the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and his disciples who would carry on his work if anything happened to him. The apostles were religious masochists. They must have been worse than credulous when they risked their lives to follow a doomed man who constantly complained about their lack of faith.
The Romans did not tolerate Messiahs. The apostles even let Peter provoke the crowd, who had come to take Jesus away in the hope of getting him put to death, by cutting off the ear of Malchus. They knew he had a sword and incidentally, one wonders why the Romans did not confiscate it long before. And why didnít the crowd confiscate it for they had a chance? If Peter had a sword he would not have got the chance to use it so the story was made up.

Peter would have been arrested for that and certainly would not have been allowed to walk away despite what the gospel says and he would not have warmed himself with Jesusí enemies later. If he had he was gullible to believe that they would forgive him for attacking Malchus, the high priestís servant, that easily. The Jews would not have been afraid to admit the attack happened though Jesus had allegedly cured the ear for it was one of a long long stream of healings that Jesus had performed.

The gospels allege that the Jews made out the reason Jesus vanished from the tomb is because his body was stolen by his disciples - an extremely serious accusation for the crime of grave robbing was punished by death. Peter and John ran to the empty tomb not believing that Jesus was gone. When they did that and risked their lives for they could have been accused of stealing him they would have died for any nonsense.
The women, particularly deranged Magdalene who the gospel says had to get seven demons evicted fromher, who started the empty tomb story and who like lunatics saw angels were accepted into the fold of the witnesses of the risen Jesus. When the apostles accepted members like that it says a lot about them.

One proof that somebody had been credulous in spiritual matters is sufficient to destroy belief in their reliability as religious teachers. However, it does not prove that they were wrong all the time but only that we cannot know what to make of their statements even if they are true.


According to the New Testament, Christianity spread rapidly among the Jews and the Gentiles. Acts says that three thousand people turned to Christ on the day of Pentecost. Would that be evidence that the resurrection really happened or that Jesus really existed or that the gospels are true? No for we donít know how much stuff Peter told them so they might have been baptised in the name of Jesus thinking he was a saint and that they could still be Jews. Their intent was more to repent and follow Jesus as exemplar than to express faith in the resurrection. The apostles hadnít time to check out if they were sure they believed in the resurrection even a bit.

Christianity is not the first heap of nonsense to take off so well like that. It is and always has been the case that the vast majority of Christian people cannot even defend belief in the resurrection adequately or say they have read a good defence that satisfied them or thought about thoroughly. Millions respond to altar calls on the spur of the moment and get tired of the thrill the next day and fall away. So the argument for the sensibleness of Christianity from its big quick spread is nonsense.

The asinine superstition that brides must be carried over the threshold for lady luck to smile on the married couple is popularly accepted so why shouldnít a yarn about a man rising from the dead be? Beliefs like that are not very strong Ė usually. There is no reason then to hold that the resurrection had anything to do with the good start Christianity got. It is forgotten that the teaching of Jesus would have been the attraction and people would easily have believed he rose from the dead without evidence that he did for they accepted resurrection or life after death anyway. There is no evidence that the resurrection was as important in the early Church as it became during the ministry of Paul therefore the resurrection is not the reason the Church got started off. It just helped in some quarters but it was not the general reason. Paul stressed the cross more than the resurrection of Jesus. It was only to the sceptical Corinthians that Paul emphasised the resurrection. Also Paul only led a branch of the Church and we have no reason to think that he had full approval of the original authorised teachers the apostles or any real approval from them at all. Christians exaggerate when they say the resurrection kick-started Christianity off.

The Gentiles converted to Christianity were terribly superstitious. They believed that the gods walked in their midst disguised as animals or people. When people like that considered the resurrection as factual it is no argument for it really being that.

For similar reasons it is fatuous to take the alleged testimony of the converted Jews to their belief in the resurrection as meaning that they were probably right. Their former religion was illogical and fanatical.

Anyway, people who couldnít figure out the principles of printing though they saw feet making prints in mud were too stupid to deserve to be listened to when they came out with a resurrection story that is more than improbable. Though their dopey ways do not indicate that everything they learned is dubious it means that they hadnít the intelligence to warrant being taken seriously when they say a miracle happened. It is always wrong to believe in a miracle unless reason and evidence compel you to. It is gullibility.

The gospels assert that many of the people were easy to fool Ė so easy in fact that they imagined that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead even though the two had been seen together! If John rose he wouldnít have changed his name to Jesus and gone about saying that John was his precursor. They accused Jesus of being John pretending to be somebody else and yet they admired and trusted him. Their stupidity and ability to prefer feelings to fact shows that Jesus could have tricked them easily. No wonder he got converts who believed he rose from the dead. Jesus told simple parables that his unintelligent apostles could not understand. Jesus was lucky in that he had a trail of dopes after him.

The Samaritans worshiped Simon Magus as a divine power and they were stunned by his miracles. Simon became a Christian along with many of the Samaritans and when he saw that the apostles could give the Holy Spirit he tried to buy the same power. The tricks of Simon and the success of Bar-Jesus, or Elymas, who was a false prophet and miracle-worker that got him to the high places and the respect of well-educated men both show that there were few who would have been resistant to deception. Read about it in Acts 8 and 13.

The crowds that reputedly welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem allegedly turned against him mere days later to please the Jewish leaders. They were more than easily led if they did that.

Peter felt that the people were easily hoodwinked when he refused to sit with the Gentiles (Galatians 2) which compromised the gospel. He was sure he could get away with exposing himself as a religious hoaxer.

Paul told the Corinthians that at the time they were called to the gospel that none of them came from influential schools of thought or educated families and were unwise by the educational standards of the time Ė which were low anyway to say the least. He asked them how many of them were wise and intelligent and said that the wise were not called but the unwise so that the wise would be shamed (1 Corinthians 1). Only the gullible converted to Christ. The gospel must have been totally ridiculous when no smart men joined up for smart men can still join silly Churches.

The doctrines of orthodox Christianity seem absurd to most people and still they accept them and do not understand them and follow their own crude version of them that a theologian would laugh at. If that can happen then why canít it happen if the doctrines really are ludicrous?

The argument that Luke depended on reliable eyewitnesses is invalid for we donít know how he made sure they were right or if only those who said what he wanted to hear got their stories in the gospel. Luke may have thought that the testimony was very flawed and depended on divine inspiration ie his own imagination to extract what he did not like and put things right as he saw right.
When the Mormons started up, a man called Howe collected many testimonies and affidavits that Joseph Smith the founder was not a prophet of God but a fraud and a rogue. It did the Mormons little harm. The Christian Church believes the testimonies. But what if the same thing happened with Jesus and the apostles? How do they know that the early Christian Church was not as anti-truth as the early Mormon Church. If the whole early Mormon Church despite persecution defied the facts so could the early Church. To say that the early Church wouldnít do that is just bigotry. If one religion can do it why not another? Why say that Christians wouldnít do that and Mormons would? That is sectarianism.  The crimes of one religion reflect on all religion. If modern Christians would do such a thing as defy the facts or if the early Christians would then their faith isnít worth respecting. Would is the key word. The faith of one who doesnít do that but who would is a nasty faith.
Paul, according to Christianity, was the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus to put his conviction that he saw this risen Jesus into writing and he wrote near enough to the event. These things would make him the only one that deserves a hearing if it were not for some other facts. He claimed to be a very bad man even when he was writing and still he said we should believe him. Anybody who expects that can hardly be trusted.
Besides the truth is that Paul didnít see or say he investigated the empty tomb of Jesus. He just saw visions of Jesus. We have no first hand evidence that the visions said they were of Jesus. Christianity admits that visions alone prove nothing because it rejects the reliability of most apparition stories.
There are no first-hand accounts of the resurrection at all.

Paul knew that prayer is communication with God. Yet he said that when you speak in tongues your spirit is praying but your mind is not (1 Corinthians 14).

Paul believed that the gift of tongues was for converting unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22). How stupid does he think we are? Babbling nonsense will convert nobody. He realised that himself for he said so then what did he say they were signs for? Probably because practicing the gift was useful for tricking the mind and programming it to believe in Paulís version of Jesus.

If God really spoke through the prophets of Corinth, Paul would not have needed to lay down rules for order (v14). He thought that God was well-organised when he declared that God doesnít confuse. Paulís thinking is incoherent and childish or he wanted ours to be.
Paul claimed that muttering gibberish was a miraculous sign from God! He was a complete nutcase if he really believed that.

He was approved by his version of the Church, the largest group in early Christianity, which shows that it was composed of fools.

Paul knew that people who did not believe in free will or who held that sin is hard to commit because there are so few sins could hardly or rarely be sinners yet he said they were (Romans 3).

He accused human beings of being totally sinful and depraved (Romans 3). Obviously, the nearest he could get to learning this would be from observing himself. A creature as vile as that has no business asking people to trust him and his gospel.

Paul stated that when he sins at times it is sin that does it not him (Romans 7:20). What kind of thinking is that?

In Romans 14, Paul hypocritically forbade eating certain foods when it offends other Christians who do not know that God lets his people eat whatever they like. Yet he held that it is wrong to commit certain acts even if not doing them scandalises others like adultery or theft or homosexuality. He wanted people to be gullible.

Paul said that Jesus must have risen from the dead for if he has not then the dead will not rise and our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15). That logic would tell you that a person who tells you they are right for they would be wrong if they were not is right.

The mind boggles regarding how a man could have nothing on his conscience and still be a sinner (1 Corinthians 4:4). Paul either had little sense or he knew his listeners had none!

These are the anti-intellectual hints. But Paul went straight for the jugular and forbade thinking when it was not his thinking.

Paul sees symbolism in a Genesis story (Galatians 4:21-31) that is not in the original. The Church says he was not claiming that it was in it but that he could see a parable for what he wanted to say in it. That is a lie for all he had to do was just say what he wanted to say without the fancy interpretation. It would have been handier and he never gave any hint that the Church was right. This proved that when he said in the book of Acts that he never undermined the Law of Moses he was lying for this allegorical interpretation indicates that he wanted it to be possible to make it mean whatever you like.

Paul declared that our faith must not depend on philosophy or wisdom but on Godís power (1 Corinthians 1,2). He commanded blind faith. The Church says he is only against false wisdom. But he said that the death of Jesus proved that the wisdom of the world which says that the Son of God could not save by dying on the cross is wrong and we cannot make sense of the death of Jesus. He is saying that when reason contradicts God, reason must be ignored. To say that God must guide your reason is the same as forbidding reason to speak clearly because the pope tells you that God will guide you to believe that contraception is bad and evangelicals say that God will guide you to believe the opposite!

Paul wrote that all the virtue in the world is useless without love. In other words, you start off with love before you think about virtue. Yet in Colossians which is from him or an adherent of his says that that you start off with patience, compassion and forgiving and you wrap these up in love to complete them (3:14). Love is patience and compassion and forgiving for heavenís sake!

Paul claimed to be an apostle equal to the twelve apostles and gave no evidence whatsoever for this authority. Not everybody agreed that Paul really was an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:2,3). To these he replied that his success as a missionary was the proof that he really was an apostle in the eyes of God. Some defence! Joseph Smith did better and he was a phoney. Paul was obviously desperate when he used that ridiculous argument and desperation like that shows that he did not care if he was an apostle or not but wanted everyone to think he was one. No evidence is ever given that the other apostles who would naturally have the right to officially declare if anybody was an apostle declared him one. Luke said Paul was an apostle but Luke on his own cannot be proved to be divinely inspired so we can drop him and he was Paul-centred when it would have made more sense for him to dwell more on the original twelve apostles in his writings. Paul often boasted that he was equal to the other apostles and then he got embarrassed and sought to soften this bragging with a declaration that he was very humble. Saying you are very humble is a form of boasting and the most manipulative form there is! To believe in Paulís writings as a part of scripture is to defy the rule that at least two trustworthy witnesses should be carefully cross-examined and pass the questioning before their claim can be accepted.

This manís miracle and religious experience stories are unreliable. Some witness to the resurrection! If Jesus had to depend on him to spread Christianity over the empire then Jesus was a fraud for God would not have picked a man that people could not reasonably rely on as a teacher. How do we know it was not the Devil that appeared at Damascus? The Devil would appear exactly as Jesus and teach only holy things if it meant driving an evil man to become a false apostle and lead the Church astray. Satan needs to be subtle.
The engineers of the Christian faith practiced and encouraged rash thinking and credulity. Christianity shouldnít be around these days but unfortunately despite modern sophistication it is.