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


esus for Christians is role model in the ordinary sense and also as in having the supernatural power and power over nature to form you according to this model.  He is a natural role model and role model as in one who acts on you to make you good and holy.  He is not role model but ROLE MODEL.  No he is THE ROLE MODEL.  No one can be more effective.

People say that Jesus was the friend of all. That is a lie for he was very abusive to the Jewish leaders if you read Matthew 23. And he did not befriend prostitutes, abandoned wives, rape victims, alcoholics etc. He only befriended some people who changed their ways and only after they had done so.

"Salvation is of the Jews". Jesus told the Samaritan woman that. Though Samaritans believed the same essentials as the Jews Jesus had a problem with her religion. Jesus is pointing to a faith that was based on scripture supposedly written by God which says plenty about divine anger and God wanting innocent people such as heretics and idol-worshippers and adulterers put to death by stoning the cruellest thing imaginable. This man is an over-rated role model. No truly good person tolerates evil in the name of religion or anything else.  Nobody has the right to point the way to a religion that stomachs any violence or violent revelations from God.  Nobody has the right to tell somebody her religion does not save when his own is nothing special morally.
The Old Testament God laid down that certain sinners such as homosexuals were to be stoned to death. Jesus if he is this God, as he supposedly claimed to be, is responsible. Christians who say that God had no choice but to command the executions cannot tell us why he had no choice. They only guess that. Also, even if he had no choice did it really have to be done by stoning? That was ultra-cruel. It is a lie too that the rules were civil rules. They were religious rules and to be enforced by religion. If the laws were really civil rules they would be more detailed and read like legislation. And Israel was a wandering tribe not a state at the time the rules were given.
The New Testament never repudiates the killings or says that the killing rules have been abrogated. If they were abrogated it was not because they were considered by Jesus to be immoral. He is clear that they are not.
Jesus said that he agreed with the Old Testament laws that people should be killed and applauded the divine command to put any son who curses his parents to death.  Jesus told the Jews off for failing to execute young men who God wanted executed for cursing their parents.

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.

In John 5:31 and in John 8:14 you have two verses with identical wording except one reads that Jesus testifying about himself would be invalid because it is him speaking for himself and the other says it would be valid if he speaks for himself.  This is not only an extreme contradiction but affects the core New Testament teaching that Jesus was infallible.  The same thing happens with Jesus saying he has and hasn't come to judge the world.  See John 9:39 and John 12:47.  And Jesus cannot agree on if scripture says he would lose one disciple or not.  See John 17:12 and 18:9.  These errors are very serious for they have Jesus losing credibility over his credentials.  If Jesus cannot testify to himself, does not know if he judges or not and does not know how to fulfil scripture which predicts him then he is not the Son of God.  His testimony to himself is not only invalid but wrong.

Jesus told the leper he healed to go to the priest to make the animal sacrifices that Moses commanded. The man could just go to the priest but he was told to ask for sacrifice as well.  Killing animals for religion is just animal murder.  Jesus is not a role model for today in a world increasingly conscious of animal welfare.

Jesus in the Gospel of John allegedly saved a woman who was about to be stoned for adultery. But Christians usually say that she was not being put forward for execution according to the rules but against them. If they were a lynch mob, they were breaking the law. The story cannot be used to show that Jesus condemned stoning anybody to death. It does the opposite. He told people that if they were not breaking the law themselves they could stone her to death for adultery.

The New Testament never protests against execution according to the rules.

Early Christians kept out of the armies. It does not mean they were against killing but against the secular powers of the time that were pagan and barbaric. And if they thought the executing was wrong that was a mistake for Jesus never hinted that it was to be discontinued. Anyway even the apostles warned that mass apostasy in the faith was already happening in their day so the majority of early Christians could have been heretical pacifists.
To claim that the rules about killing are not binding on us any more is irresponsible for it is a lie. People will find out and could consider obeying the laws again.

The Church claims that the perfect and loving God became man, Jesus, to give us an example of how we can be like him. The Church brags that it eats this Jesus at Mass so that it becomes like him for we are what we eat!

The Church then contradicts this by saying that Jesus was God and had supernatural powers. A man who has the power to turn stones into bread and who sleeps rough and has to earn his bread is not a role model. Rather he is an actor.

By presenting Jesus as a human example, the Church is merely damaging us. Nobody can feel that a man-God is an example for them. In fact, it only discourages them.

Jesus Christ was not an example for anybody. He didn’t do any good works. The atheist who is serving soup down skid row is a better person.

He did not act like a normal person. He went on about faith all the time. He did no normal good works - it had to be the lazy option of miracles. He was very blunt. He talked a lot about Hell and demons. And he said we must copy him. The Church thinks today that Jesus would have believed he was God but that does not mean he was certain of it. If God really became man in Jesus, then it is possible Jesus never realised he was God until the resurrection. The reason for this is so that Jesus could be a real role model for us. But hardly anybody copies him.

There are no stories of how Jesus lived among the lepers and dressed up their wounds.

There are no stories about him doing without his food to feed the poor.

There are no stories about how he raised money for the starving children in Jordan's war zones.

There are no stories about how he averted bloodshed and became a peacemaker in gang warfare.

The Church has people feeling they are united with their departed parents and children and others by praying for them. This is a cruel lie for the Church claims that Jesus was right to say that family relationships end at death so that your spouse is not your spouse any more.

Jesus didn’t agree with annulling marriages between men and young girls. In fact he told them their marriages were indissoluble. He did nothing about the corrupt and silly laws of the time. In fact, all he did was ban men from divorcing in order to enslave women more to men.  Men in a man's world hate their wives if they feel they are stuck with them.  He banned women from divorcing even though they could not divorce anyway (he was reinforcing the entrapment of women) and marriage was terrible for them and they were treated as baby producers.  Sometimes a woman leaving a marriage could save her life if she stayed celibate after for at least she would not die in childbirth. Some say that Jesus thought highly of women when women were the first ones to meet him after he rose from the dead.  But nothing says Jesus planned that or expected that.  And their testimony was confirmed by men so it is still really about the men.  And he told the adulteress she should be stoned if men worth to stone her could be found.  And as for the Samaritan woman he engaged in a conversation with her that commented on her sexual morals and her religion.  The respect Jesus had for women is totally mythical.  It is an insult to women to pretend that a misogynist is a woman's liberationist.  Most men who respect women still treat them as second class and that is the problem. 

Jesus sent people to cast out demons. They rejoiced at their success. He told them not to rejoice that the demons were expelled but to rejoice that their names were written in Heaven. See Luke 10:17-20. Clearly having faith that one will be blessed in Heaven is to be selfishly celebrated in preference to celebrating the power to do good works! The passage teaches pure Lutheranism - where faith is exalted and good works denigrated.

All we have are miracle tales that he cured people without any loss to himself. How easy it was for him!

The Church then invented those miracle stories about him to make him appear in a better light.

Read the story of the poor widow who put a pittance into the Temple collection for it was all she had. Jesus said she had given more than the rest for she gave and left herself with nothing. Jesus himself said that if you give out of your wealth you deserve no praise because its no loss to you. So then how could a man with miracle powers deserve a reward for magicing away somebody’s sickness? How can he deserve praise? His help cost him nothing. Jesus was an example of religiosity not humanity.

Robert Price in Blaming Jesus for Jehovah says that Jesus welcomed outcasts and urged people to turn their lives away from sin and did not rail against those who crucified him. But even that is not really praiseworthy. To welcome people with a view to see them come into a man-made faith that teaches violence in the name of God and worships a God who endorsed that violence is not what a good man does. It would not stop him being popular but it would stop him being good. And sin (a crime against God) violates his own teaching against unfair judgment for it is not fair to accuse people of offending God if there is no God to care what you do. You need to prove God has reveal moral laws before you can accuse anybody of sin. And bad people usually do not rail against those who are putting them to death. And the gospels would not tell us if Jesus was abusive on the cross. Luke says Jesus prayed for his tormenters saying that he wanted God to forgive them for they know not what they do. That is pure passive aggression for if you start saying evil people don’t know what they are doing you won’t feel angry enough to do something about them. And Jesus may have in fact railed against God on the cross for he roared that he was forsaken by God.

Do not forget that Jesus's main "good" trait, his forgiving nature, is not really a good trait. Why? Because he threatened those who would not forgive the same person several times a day by saying God would visit judgement on them and their sins would not be forgiven. In Matthew 18:34-35 Jesus warns that you will be tortured by God through torturers he employs if you don't forgive your brother sincerely. If you are threatened to forgive the end result will be a very unsatisfying forgiveness. Jesus' gospel spreads torture and if you don't embrace the torture worse will wait for you in the afterlife! Forgiveness has to be natural not forced. What Jesus advocated was a passive aggressive form of hypocrisy disguised as mercy. To bully people to forgive those who savaged them is reprehensible.

Jesus said that if your brother will not repent after a warning from you and the Church then let him be to you as a tax collector or Gentile.  See Matthew 18:17.  Some say this is a personal rejection - it is you rejecting the person not the Church doing it.  So love of enemies did not seem to apply if the person is a convert to Jesus!

Forgiveness is a religious smokescreen. Religion promotes it to make itself look good. It gives it great power. In fact, forgiving does not matter. What matters is preventing the hurt done to you from hurting you or excessively making you angry and bitter. Emotional control matters and forgiveness does not. Another suggestion is that if something bad happens to you mourn and that helps you work through the destructive power of how you feel. Christianity is a moral bully for it warns, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’ For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours." This sweet passive aggressive doctrine from Jesus has caused untold harm. It means that fundamentally Christianity is morally flawed.

We still do not have a man who laboured for the rights of the poor, for changing bad social structures, who condemned capital punishment and the torture of women accused of adultery and who gave away the last loaf he had. The “good” Jesus did even if it could be called good is cheap. It makes Christians feel good to have such a terrible role model for the same reason it made the pagans feel good to have gods with flawed morals and intelligence. It makes them feel better about the kind of people they are.

The Protestant religion tends to find that people get tired of its Jesus very quickly. Catholicism has a bigger hold over Catholics than Protestants do Protestants chiefly because the Church sets the saints as role models knowing that Jesus as God cannot be a humble role model.   And he was not exactly endearing for he never once gave his breakfast to the poor. The gospels found a dearth of his good works so they made up miracles about him helping people. The Catholics claim that Jesus is still with us as much today as he was when he was a visible man. If Catholics find him off-putting they reason, "But he is at work doing good and binding up the wounds of the sick through his saints and his people." That is a rationalisation. You could say that of Hitler.

It could be argued that if Jesus really made religion better that he was a moral relativist who thought that murdering other nations in the name of faith in God was okay in the past but not now. Is being a moral relativist really anything to boast about?

Christians say Jesus was truly God and truly man. This is the incarnation. It is the reason why Mary, Jesus' mother, is referred to as the mother of God. The notion of some that Jesus was sinless but limited by the incarnation and that was where his vicious or unedifying teachings came from is a fraud. God incarnate should not be doing things that look like sins. The believers are only trying to pretend that Jesus' bad behaviour was not really bad but just mistaken. The argument is speculation for the New Testament insists that Jesus was the quintessential role model and even better than sin-free Job of the Old Testament. And the believers do not use such excuses for other god-men such as Krishna.

The role model thing sounds very mythological.  What if Jesus had been say sexually abused and ended up with syphilis which could have affected his mind and behaviour?  What if like many of the saints he was supposedly infected with demons at times?  If he did bad things then he would still be a role model for these things were not freely down but down to his condition.  Jesus though not great is still a bit too good to be true.  Is God much of a God if he will become man but not one that has Aspergers?

It is odd that making a saint of Jack the Ripper is unthinkable for Christians when they make saints of Moses who was a mass-murderer and of St Paul. And they make a God of the man that condoned murders that surpassed anything the Ripper ever did.


Theologians today usually find the notion of Jesus having to pay for our sins as in atone for them ridiculous. God can simply forgive. And if God punishes Jesus in our place it follows that we do not really get forgiveness for that is not what he intends to give. There is no evidence that Jesus really was a happy person and his deliberately refusing to hide on the night of his arrest when he guessed he would be crucified and his provocative answers during his trial show that his intention was to be suicidal and bring crucifixion on himself. The negativity and hatred expressed by Jesus towards sin and the world and the Pharisees turned him into a man who badly wanted to escape from this world. People want to use Jesus as a case against big things such as abortion, same sex marriage and euthanasia.  My point is that if somebody wants to use Jesus as a case against euthanasia they are doomed to expose themselves as liars. Jesus supposedly suffering to give meaning to all suffering. Sorry suffering is the loss of meaning among other things so there is no such thing as giving meaning to suffering! Even if there was a huge risk of losing meaning when you suffer and this is unavoidable for many the doctrine is cruel and passive aggressive. Feeling that somebody else has suffered even a God has no magical power to help you. It can make you feel worse and indeed should for you don’t want to make everything about you.


Scam artists in religion usually give you very general teachings such as love others and be fair but never tell you what to do in a more specific and helpful way.  Jesus was the same.  He would have known people needed proper guidance not vague stuff that puts them at the mercy of self-appointed and often malevolent moral experts.  Jesus acted like a politician who hides behind fancy statements and who says nothing to show he really knows what he is talking about.  There was nothing original in Jesus’ ethical teaching. The notion that morality is not just about visible actions but about what is in the heart and head as well is not new other though many say it is. Buddhism stresses purity inside as well as outside. Incredibly in the first gospel, Mark, Jesus shows markedly little interest if any in ethics.  That is the main reason that when the gospel has Jesus objecting to being called good teacher he meant that he was nothing special morally.

Jesus stated that he knew exactly what religion was like.  He presented himself as a crusader against bad religion.  He knew of the violent commands of God in the Old Testament commanding the brutal murder of “sinners.” He knew that women were given no religious place or honour. He upheld how men took little girls to marry them and even banned the girls from divorcing. He knew that the religious leaders were charlatans and corrupt. He said they just promote outward religion with no concern for what is in the heart. He complained how they put their man-made rules above the scriptures. If he founded another religion or even just supported his own religion then he has to take responsibility for the terrible consequences. Christianity has seen more sectarian violence and in-fighting than any other religion. It is so much of a placebo for evil that its work against abortion is fruitless – Christians abort sometimes far more than pagans do. Usually they do it is as much. The religion realises it is a complicated faith so often it talks about the faith journey. Hitler must have been on a faith journey for he selected teachings of the Church that helped him stir up indifference in Germany for the fate of the Jews. The Church must take responsibility for what Hitler did. But it does not. It is not any Christian's place to say the evil has to do with men not Jesus for they cannot really speak for Jesus. They cannot talk to him as one man to another. And it is bigotry to make insinuations against others to defend Jesus.  He is responsible for that too.

It is odd how Catholics who hate Protestants claim to love Jesus when for all they know the Protestants might be right that he set up their religion and theology. If Jesus was a Protestant or would look on the Protestants as his true followers in doctrine what then?


Too many use their ideal version of Jesus to try and silence others and to manipulate them.

Is Jesus only respected because his followers are not really followers for they know little about him or is it that they are happy to idolise a bad model of holiness?  There is an egotism in saying that your god is the best or the perfect one and that you are in a position to assess for you are so smart and good.  To say your God is perfect is you indirectly boasting about yourself.

If you are in a position to judge Jesus as the perfect role model then you must be even more perfect for you are claiming to be in a position to judge. The humility of Christianity is really arrogant self-aggrandizement. The God you adore can be seen in the mirror.

These are the things you have to ignore by calling mysteries if you want to believe in Jesus.

He did say ethnocentric things if you read how he said he came only for those of the house of Israel in Matthew 15:24 and said he will not give the bread of the children of Israel to dogs in Matthew 15:26.  Of course against this are texts that say the gospel is to be preached to all but are they the truth?  The possibility remains that they are not.  If Jesus changed his mind on racism he was still a racist one time.  It is not right to risk putting forward a potential racist as the precious son of God.  The racist Jesus is the real Jesus for the racism of the Old Testament did not stop him saying it was scripture and scripture cannot be broken or wrong (John 10:35).

Jesus did teach a magical view of prayer and exaggerated how powerful it is.  He meant it literally as we can see from Luke 17:6 when he speaks of a bush that is to be moved by faith.  Christians take such promises about prayer as figurative for it is obvious that you cannot move a mountain by faithful prayer.  That is not an honest approach for it denies that Jesus could have meant it literally and ignores the context if it sets a literal interpretation.  The honest thing to do is just to say its wrong.  Jesus was not the only one selling dreams and will not be the last - listening Louise Hay?

His rioting in the Temple - some authorities think that he did it at the start of his ministry (gospel of John) and also at the end of it (Mark, Matthew and Luke).  The Jews in the aftermath decided to have him killed as they were afraid of him.  The problem was "the whole crowd was driven to madness [exeplesseto] by his teaching."

His telling a woman that her daughter was the same as a dog.

His telling a vulnerable frightened woman that she deserved to be stoned to death.  He made her sweat to punish her for adultery and told her not to sin again instead of telling the mob to leave sinners alone in future.

His threat that anybody who does not believe will be damned as if you can control what you believe that much!

His not repudiating the violence of his God in the Old Testament.  He was careful when dealing with the adulteress who was in danger of getting stoned not to say that stoning her would be inherently wrong. He admitted that from his black heart she deserved it.

Jesus lied about saving us for the average Christian is no better or worse than anybody in Jesus' day who he said had no saviour and needed salvation.

His resurrection was a cheat for the main point is it shows salvation from death by giving eternal life but an empty tomb and a few days of visions does not amount to a case for saying that a man can live forever. Jesus could have stopped appearing for he died again.  It is like somebody showing you a wallet full of money and saying its evidence or an indication that he really has a billion pounds in the bank.  Its a lie.

And much much more.

Christianity excuses things such as hate at times by saying human nature is weak and hate is not a sin then.  There are enough loopholes to mean the faith is nothing special.  But do not forget that the loopholes would apply to Jesus as a man as well.  Thus they are complete hypocrites by pretending that they know that Jesus was all-loving.

Jesus was a fake saviour and thus to blame for the evil done by his religion in his name for they had reasonable grounds to regard that evil as authorised by him.