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?

 


BIBLE IS THE MANUAL OF RIPPERS INCLUDING JACK THE RIPPER

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures Justify and inspire the Religious Murder of Prostitutes

As a Jew the Ripper knew the Jewish Bible very well and it was the centre of his faith and culture.

One terrible terrible feature of the Law of Moses in the Bible is how much pornographic time is given to sick details about mutilating and eviscerating beautiful animals by an altar in the mae of God.  God loves giving out such laws.  While love your neighbour gets one paltry line the bulk of the writings revel in violence against animals of the sickest imaginable kind.  And in the name of worship?  That is what Jesus Christ called infallible scripture whose word would never pass away and what he went to the Temple to celebrate.

Jesus preached love but think of what love is - it is sacrificing to protect another from danger.  So love presupposes danger and that evil people are out there.  To love a person is to be prepared to fight the evil in them for evil is seen as being in some way self-destructive and insane.  Love then has a dark side and is based on fear of evil people and of the loved one becoming evil.  That is why the love that permeates the Bible is so dark and dangerous.

There was a lot in the Old Testament to make the man become Jack the Ripper. He would have known it well. And the example of the Christians who likewise tried to follow the great commandments and ended up twisted and neurotic would have affected him too. He would have known of Christian preachers who preached about the battle of Armageddon. There the final earthly battle between God’s forces and his enemies will take place. The Old Testament predicts that the people of God will be armed and turn on those who are not the people of God. In that day God will kill those who disobey him such as prostitute and unbelievers and heretics but he will do it through protecting his people as they slaughter the hated enemies of God. Jesus was certainly not a pacifist though he may not have lifted a sword against anybody when he was on earth. He sanctioned the Law and the Prophets, the whole Old Testament as the Jews have it. The Law and the Prophets promise that one day this king, the Christ, will come and lead the Church into bloody warfare against evildoers and unbelievers. Jesus accepted such declarations as referring to himself.

In the Laws God gave the Jewish prophet Moses, it is clear that prostitutes should be cruelly murdered. These laws start off with, “The Lord said to Moses”. The laws claim to be the very words of God. The method favoured for destroying prostitutes was stoning them to death. These Laws are part of scriptures revealed by God. It would be illogical to accept that these scriptures are true when they say there is one God, that God is jealous and that he acted visibly to take care of Israel and to reject their more unpalatable teachings. God miraculously split the Red Sea in two to let the Israelites cross over to the other side so that the Egyptians couldn’t recapture them. When the Egyptians went into the gap God let the water come back in on them. He could have used a wind or something to stop them trying to enter. Why accept that God murdered the Egyptians by drowning them in the Red Sea unnecessarily when he could have used a storm to prevent them attacking the Israelites and deny that he wanted prostitutes put to death?

God said, “The daughter of any priest who profanes herself by playing the harlot profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9).

Prostitutes by default are adulteresses. “The man who commits adultery with another’s wife, even his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man marries a woman and finds that she wasn’t a virgin when they married the following is prescribed: “if it is true that the evidences of virginity were not found in the young woman, Then they shall bring her to the door of her father’s house and the men of the city shall stone her to death, because she has wrought [criminal] folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Clearly when she could be murdered like that in front of her father’s house the father and the family were not allowed to be upset over her death. They must rejoice in it. Children are to be loved conditionally on the condition that they don’t seriously break the law of God. There can be no doubt that the Bible encourages hatred of women who commit sexual sin. There is no doubt that scriptures like this encourage psychopaths and religious maniacs. Just because the Church claims the right to revere such scriptures, people have to die!

Jesus himself said that the Law, these teachings, are the heart of God’s word and that no true prophet from God will contradict it. He said he didn’t come to repeal the Law of Moses but to improve it. He tightened it up. It forbade adultery but he forbade even the desire for adultery. A woman was brought by the Jews to Jesus accused of adultery. This crime was punishable by death by stoning. He said that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone. They all went away for they all had sins. All this tells us is that only people who aren’t guilty of those kinds of sin themselves have the right to condemn a person so cruelly to death for adultery. To read it as an endorsement of letting her off the hook is totally wrong and he didn’t say she shouldn’t be put to death. He did say that it was right to stone her if the stoners were any better than her. Also putting people to death without consulting the judges of Israel was illegitimate. Then it wouldn’t be killing her that would be the sin but bypassing the judges. They had no right to execute her anyway. When they took her to Jesus and not to the judges it shows they were lying about their certainty that she was guilty. It is telling that Jesus despite that is still on record as wanting her stoned if the circumstances allowed it. What a woman-hater! Nothing in the Bible indicates that holy murder is wrong.

St Paul an apostle of Jesus and therefore an authorised explainer of the teachings of Christ stated that in no sin do you sin against your body but one. And that is by having sex with a prostitute. Christians are considered parts of the body of Christ so to have sex with a prostitute is to unite Christ with a harlot (1 Corinthians 56:15-20) an immense sin. If the sin is so repulsive it will be impossible to avoid hating prostitutes. Sex must be the worst sin possible for Paul excluded the idea that self-abuse or using your body to steal was as bad and was trying to unite Christ with evil. He certainly had the idea that to unite Christ with a sexual sinner was so bad that uniting him with a thief or murderer was nothing in comparison. There is real hatred for prostitutes in this theology.

Christianity incites to hatred against prostitutes for though it has no evidence that any of its doctrines are true it still dares to accuse serious sinners of deserving everlasting torment in Hell from which there is no release. This is slander when there is no evidence or proof. If you love your son or your father and you imagine that he will suffer horrendous torment in Hell forever if he dies after sleeping with a prostitute then how could you possibly avoid hating that prostitute? Many of the Jews believed in eternal torment for serious sinners after death and in the bigoted idea that adultery and prostitution were necessarily serious sins. If the Ripper agreed it would make him hate prostitutes. Even if he didn’t he would have still hated prostitutes for the prostitutes were baptised Christians and were uncaring if their trade led men to Hell.

Judaism and Christianity see how their God commands the destruction of certain sinners in order to purge the sin from the midst of the people. They command then the hatred of sin. Jesus said that you should hate sin so much that you should cut your hand off if it makes you sin to get across how much one ought to detest sin.

Both religions then teach that you should hate the sin but many forms of them teach that that you must love the sinner. This is absurd. You either hate the sin and the sinner or you love the sinner and the sin. Why? Because the sin is something that the sinner causes and does. It is a part of the sinner. You can hate somebody’s sickness but not hate them for the sickness is something that happens to them and isn’t their fault. But sin is not sickness. It’s the deliberate creation and willing of evil. To say that John’s work is a disgrace is to say that John is a disgrace.

It is not going too far to accuse Judaism and Christianity of self-deception and hypocrisy in their teaching. We all know by experience that loving the sinner and hating the sin they commit is impossible. The teaching has a lot in it even when so diluted, to incite to hatred against sinners.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures both teach that if there is one commandment you must keep it is the one to love God with all your heart and strength for God gave this commandment to Moses (Jesus confirmed it). It implies this by saying this is the greatest commandment. So love starts with loving God not yourself or others. The commandment that comes next is the next most important but significantly it is not the most important, “you shall love your neighbour as yourself”. So you are to love God more than yourself or your neighbour. But we know that if you are to be in anyway normal you must start with loving yourself for failure to love yourself properly is reflected and manifested in cruel and malicious actions towards others. The commandments forbid this as sin which helps explain why those most devoted to these commandments ended up thirsting for blood. Despite the love of neighbour requirement, it is plain from the commandments that religion is for God and not for man. Man may benefit but that is not what religion is for. Benefits are side-effects. So it is a sin to seek any benefit in religion. This advocates a pining for death and suffering and blood which we see reflected in Jesus who refused to take simple steps to avoid being crucified but embraced this terrible death. To frustrate your natural need to love yourself is to foment anger in yourself.

What, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and powers and the next most important commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself” really means is, “We the ministers of God ask you to believe in God and put this belief above everything else.” It is really the belief that is being loved. This is the pure stuff of bigotry and shows that God religion is intrinsically power hungry and authoritarian. Rules come before people. No wonder God religion has produced so many charming psychopaths. There are Catholic priests and bishops in Africa threatening the people with hellfire unless they leave themselves open to AIDS for condom use is a sin.

Judaism and Christianity, when correctly understood, are not humanitarian religions. People are helped not for their own sake but for the sake of the faith and because the faith asks it. If the faith asked one to murder them then it would have to be done. The underlying lack of value placed on the person is there whether believers murder for the faith or not. If faith comes before people then it is okay to kill in the name of faith and God and religion. That is what the anti-humanitarianism of these faiths is saying.

God told Saul through Samuel that he wanted to punish the people of Amalek for blocking Israel when they were coming out of Egypt by getting Israel to put them all to death and even the children (1 Samuel 15). When mercy was shown God got angry. This was commanding war both for revenge and obedience to the Lord. Christians will say that revenge was not the only reason but one reason and that the main reason was to eradicate their evil. But God would have stated the main reason if that had been right and that is what a responsible and careful God would do. God is condoning war for the purpose of vengeance. Christians say that it was good of God to command things like that because there is a life after death for the dead babies who would have inherited the evil characteristics of their parents had they not been killed and that the parents should have been killed for they were irremediably evil (page 104, Christianity for the Tough-Minded). Loads of evil parents have good children and even the Bible does not say that the Amalekites were that bad. Besides, God had founded no religion for them for the Hebrews did not want them in theirs and there was no trace of the doctrine of a holy and nice afterlife at that period of time. God hadn’t revealed any of it so how could the afterlife justify what the Hebrews did when they didn’t believe in it? What right had they to kill over Samuel who was only one man claiming to speak the word of God? And it is judgmental to accuse the people God told Israel to kill of extreme obstinacy in evil. It is not right that many Christians try to make up excuses for the Bible’s version of God for that means they worship a kind of being they know is evil. Today, prostitutes and homosexuals would be in the same moral category as the people of Amalek. We are to hate the Amalekites so we are to hate them as well.

The Jews and the Christians hold that the Old Testament in the Bible is the word of God. God spoke the word and preserved it for us. No other work is the word of God and infallible except Christians add the New Testament in as well. When God had to put in his violent and hate filled commandments and revelations into his word instead of more peaceable and edifying substance then God has a definite predilection for violence. To adore his book as his word is to become as bad as he is. Most of the violence in the Bible is encouraged against women. God reveals himself through his word. God commands that God be adored and liked above all. That means his book has to be liked too for you can’t love God and hate what he has said about himself and what he wants.

Joel 3 says that God will assemble the nations and have a judgment with them so he will engage in direct communication and he calls his people to turn their tools into weapons and Egypt shall be left in desolation as a result of the final world war in which the Jewish people will be triumphant because God used them for taking his revenge (verse 21). Other incitements to violence from God can be seen in the book of Obadiah, Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 12 and 14; Daniel 2:44; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 2:26-27; Revelation 19:14. Jews believe in the Old Testament passages here and think that the Messiah when he comes will lead them into this war. Jesus claimed to be this king and that he would return as the Old Testament foretold. When Jesus was not a pacifist it is hardly right to assume that he did away with the Old Testament God’s murderous and bloodthirsty laws. He never needed to fight when he was alive except when he caused a violent riot in the Temple. He embraced his death because he said it was right for him to die – God needed the gore and suffering and blood to save the world - and not because he thought that bearing arms was wrong.

Books such as the Bible are dangerous to the minds of disturbed people. Because people promoted these books as correct and without error for God wrote them and God doesn’t make mistakes, five prostitutes in the East End of London had to be brutally slain in 1888. Those who never change their opinions love themselves more than the truth. And Jews and Christians when loyal to their faith, and not to some watered down version of it do insist that it is a virtue never to change your mind about the Bible being God’s true word.

If your religion says violent revelations and Bibles are from God or promotes such which give mixed messages on violence it is its duty to take responsibility if somebody reads that stuff and becomes mad enough to carry it out. That religion will not take the responsibility shows it is itself capable of great evil.