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?

 


THE EVIL CAUSED BY JESUS' MINISTRY TO THIS DAY SHOWS THAT IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVIL FORCES THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THEY PLAYED A PART
 
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 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!
 
He accused anybody who says he was using Satan to cast out Satan of an eternal sin - he had something to hide and was using intimidation to make people from seeing that.