Despite all the lies about Jesus being the super-role-model for love and respect the gospels only have love being put on Jesus' lips about 13 times.  And the number is made up because they copied from each other.  The words about judgment and his name calling of others which include fools and so on vastly outnumber all that.  And the love he preached is about loving God not money and loving God totally instead of giving him a portion of your devotion.  Love your neighbour is about loving God for you are to do it in response to God asking you do.  Jesus then can only be a weapon, a tool of oppression.  And that is what he remains today.

Remember what he said, "How much longer can I put up with you?"  If you agree that only he can judge he was judging here and thus asking his followers to hate those who were irritating him.

One fear that believers have is that without a God to give us laws about justice then you cannot have real morals.  They say that morals need to be correct in the way that even if everybody believed the Nazis were right what they did was still very wrong.  The question is, "Are morals in our minds?  Do moral requirements and duties exist independently of the minds of persons?" They fear this turns morals into opinions not truths.  But if there is a problem then shifting morals to the mind of God does not help.  That is what they try to do.  They weaponise God.  But if morals are not real and are subjective opinions it does not matter whose mind you rest them in.  They are being disingenuous.  Worse, they try to shift the morals unto the mind of Jesus.  But Jesus did loads of things that cannot be called moral even by his own standards.

They want moral rules to fit these three ways.

Normative way, No person should kill a baby for fun.

Descriptive way, It is immoral for any person to do that.

Imperative way, You shall not abuse any baby.

Sorry you will not get this from Jesus.  Wandering about he must have seen the cruel Romans play with babies and slay their mothers.  He said nothing.  He told a woman in front of a mob who wanted to stone her for adultery that she was guilty which only meant she was marked by her society for stoning in the future.  He did not save her from death but postponed for the mob had sins themselves and were unworthy to stone her.  If he were the pro-life person he were supposed to be, he would have said that stoning women was wrong for it risked killing their unborn babies as well.

He went as far as to say you must be God's slave not sin's slave as if slavery is not inherently bad.  Slaves do not necessarily work for nothing but they are not free.  And he warned that we should serve God and seek nothing back.  He was endorsing the worst form of slavery he could cook up.

Considering how people who have benefited handsomely financially, politically and socially from going along with Christianity are saying, “Jesus would this and Jesus would that”, I wish to ask them did Jesus give them permission to speak for him? Can they tell us why they can be the mouth of Jesus and not Henry VIII.  Don't see people queuing up to manipulate Muhammad's memory like that!  As a Jew who was under Roman occupation Jesus should not be spoken for by those who are not even of his race.  It is sick to use a man who died on a cross that way.  Christians have no right to use a person of the Jewish religion or race for their own ends.  And especially when it is a race that has suffered hate from Christianity from the very start. And Christianity got power by demonising Jewish leaders and hijacking their scriptures to distort them and use them against them.  Liberal Christianity had a huge role in what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

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 it is 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.  It's a lie.

And there is 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.


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?

No Copyright