CHAPTER FOUR
EVIL of the NEW TESTAMENT
You had seen me point out many of the vile things that the bible said in “Evil of the Old Testament.” Which must have been especially difficult for any Jews to have read. No doubt any Christians who read this will find this next chapter even more difficult to read. One reason being that all of the crap that was written in the new testament is piled on top of all of the crap that was written in the old testament. To begin, let’s start off with what it said in Matt. 5:10. It says:
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
The trouble with what they said here is that people who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake can mean the same thing as people who are persecuted in the name of righteousness. And people persecuted in the name of righteousness shouldn’t be blessed. Now no doubt there are probably people out there who would say that what they meant to say was “blessed are the righteous who are persecuted.” But if that was what they meant, that is what they should have said. Also, as you will be seeing more of as you go along, you can’t assume that what they said had a good meaning. Another thing is that there may be people out there who might say that when they referred to “righteousness’ sake” here, they were speaking about Jesus. But to encourage people to suffer persecution for the sake of any cult leader is pretty rotten. And as far as Jesus’s righteousness goes, I’ve already dug a hole and thrown that idea in it. For the rest of this chapter, you will see me shoveling dirt into the hole to bury that idea.
In speaking of what I take to be Jesus’s commandments, in Matt. 5:19, it says:
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach other men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I think it’s pretty rotten for them to teach that you can break one of the least important of what I take to mean Jesus’s commandments and still go to heaven. Because if any of their rules wasn’t worth enforcing, it wasn’t worth commanding people to follow. Now there may be some who think that altering a person’s rank in heaven is a form of enforcement. But to me it would seem that being in heaven would be the important thing. What your rank there may be would be largely unimportant. After all, what would a higher ranking person in heaven be able to do. Sit on a softer cloud?
Now I don’t know what you would call this next paragraph that I am going to mention. Was it a commandment or just a teaching. Whatever the case is, it’s pretty bad. In Matt. 5:25, it says:
“Agree with thy adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.”
Well instead of telling people how they might avoid punishment, if they are in fact in the wrong, I have a better idea. Don’t go around making people your adversaries. That is unless they deserve to be adversaries.
Another of the many teachings that make life easier for the wicked can be found in Matt. 5:39. It says:
“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Between god creating evil and Jesus telling you not to resist evil, it would seem that you would all be better off if you became evil. But again I say that evil should always be fought. To teach people to do otherwise is evil! Besides, evil isn’t so strong that it can’t be fought and defeated. Though even if there were a flood of evil, the way to handle a flood isn’t to let it have its way with you. The best way to handle a flood is to swim well. It would also be helpful to build better drainage. Also, Jesus probably understood that in turning the other cheek, you would be offering resistance. Lame as it would be. By trying to make the person who struck you feel guilty for doing so. So what he said sent a rather mixed signal.
An even better example of evil here can be found in Matt. 5:44-45. It says:
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be children of the Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Assuming of course that those who may mistreat you are wrong in doing so, I can’t imagine how much more evil anybody could get than to tell you to make things downright pleasant for such people. I say that anybody who does good to the evil or says that you should always do good to the wicked is a sleazy, slimy asshole! And those would be their good points! What they teach here also illustrates one of the major shortcomings of religious emotion. How it can make something seem beautiful when it is actually sick, demented and diseased. One of many reasons why what they said here is wrong is because too much of about anything, like forgiveness of your enemies, is not good. Now you may remember me saying before that what the bible does is put a little poison in with the sugar. But now, on top of that, the amount of sugar itself makes the poison. You may also remember my saying before that god, if it exists, was in fact a devil. Take all of the forgiveness and love that Jesus supposedly taught. Don’t you think that a devil would know that it can, as the old saying goes, “trap more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
So it seems that I have to say again, and not for the last time, that evil should always be fought. Even if it couldn’t be beaten, I wouldn’t buy into this “if you can’t beat them, bless them” crap. Then, what was the reason he gave here for being nice to the wicked? It was because god supposedly caused the sun to shine and the rain to fall on them as well. Which wasn’t much of a reason. Now there are undoubtedly those out there who would say that we are all guilty to some degree and therefore unworthy to point a finger of blame. But having done wrong doesn’t disqualify you from trying to change and fight evil when and where you can. Unfortunately, people are so screwed up in what they have been taught, most people’s understanding of good and evil is only rudimentary at best. There is another interesting aspect to all this overblown love and forgiveness crap that Jesus taught. Which is that despite it, Christians had in the past been guilty of some incredibly evil deeds. Though let’s compare him to another piece of shit prophet of god. Namely Mohammed.
Unlike Christ, this guy actually led armies into battle to spread his religion. (Apparently, it couldn’t succeed through philosophy alone) Though for his followers, believing their own lies, they would probably tell you that these wars were defensive actions. I saw an interesting documentary about Muslims once. Though my disdain for Islam preceded it by a very long time, it contained a lot of interesting information. Some of which I didn’t even know about. Unless you prefer to wallow in ignorance, you should watch it too. It’s called, “Islam: What The West Needs To Know.” One of the things I saw on it was an old fresco that showed pictures of both Mohammed and the angel gabriel. Some deluded Muslim believer had apparently chipped away the face of Mohammed because it was too holy to look at. But left the picture of gabriel alone. How could anybody be so deluded as to think that the face of a human was more holy than the image of gabriel. After all, being an angel, gabriel should in theory be a far superior being compared to Mohammed. Not only that, but you would have to suppose that gabriel actually spent who knows how long in the actual presence of allah.
This is one of the problems of acting through faith. It can lead to some pretty stupid actions. Another thing I learned in the documentary I recommended is that the cocksucker (Personal opinion) Mohammed is that he is said to have personally cut off between six hundred and nine hundred heads. According to a painting I had seen of the act, he didn’t do so neatly with an ax or sword. That bloodthirsty devil in disguise apparently preferred the hands on approach of doing so with a big knife. So given the filthy things that Christians had been guilty of, the demented and violent things that Muslims are guilty of should be no surprise. Such as doctors or other well educated Muslims being willing to kamikaze themselves to commit acts of terrorism. Or Muslim fighters specifically targeting school children. Though religion isn’t compleatly to blame for such actions. Now you have yet to see to what degree my contempt for Jesus reaches. But at least he apparently wasn’t as violent of a piece of shit as Mohammed was.
As for those who think the image of Mohammed is too holy to look at, I have an image of him in my head right now. In which he is performing fellatio on a large dog and having a pig screw him in the ass. Ok. Now I have an image of him in my head of him doing the same thing the other way around. (I didn’t know pigs could ejaculate so much!) Unfortunately, I’m not an artist. Or I would draw such images. That would really piss those brainwashed monkeys off. But followers of Mohammed shouldn’t feel too picked on. Because I have an equal amount of disregard for any cult leader or religion that has to rely on things like faith, religious fanaticism, dogma, or most disgustingly, aggression to sustain what they would like you to think is right and true.
What they said in this next paragraph perverts an act of charity. In Matt. 6:1, it says:
“TAKE heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
What they were getting at here was that people shouldn’t have given alms openly. Just think of how terrible it supposedly would have been if a nasty habit like giving alms was to spread. Though from what they later said, apparently they didn’t want people to do it just to bolster their image. But there are worse things that could happen than to give charity for selfish reasons. Like neglect of the poor, disinterest in their situation or putting a stigma on openly doing a good deed. Also, as I said before, giving alms isn’t a very good way of dealing with poverty anyway.
Another thing I talked about before is that telling people to live recklessly is extraordinarily bad advice. Yet another example of such teachings can be found in Matt. 6:25. It says:
“Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not life more than meat, and the body more than raiment?”
I wouldn’t give this advice to a worm. Now to the contrary if what he said, you should take care of yourself. Because life is pretty miserable without a steady supply of food and water. It can also be pretty bad if you don’t have adequate clothing.
More of their bad teachings on this matter can be found in Matt. 6:34. It says:
“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
Following teachings like this, you would have reason to pray. And pray hard! Which is probably why they said it. Now you shouldn’t worry unduly about things before you need to. But many things must be thought of in advance to control or prevent. Like overpopulation, ecological damage, etc. And despite the things they said, planning where your next meal is coming from is always a good idea. Then they spoke of the evil of the day. But if there was any evil involved in their lives, it was likely largely their own fault. Also, they might have said the trouble of the day, the struggle thereof or something like that. But no, they had to say evil. Which serves two purposes. First, it could cause people to become desensitized to the idea of evil. Well they can try all they want, (and they do) just don’t be fooled by it. The second effect of bringing up evil here could be to cause people to be dissatisfied with this life. Which they also did all the time by making people think that it is the afterlife that counts. But people shouldn’t neglect this life in hopes of a better one in heaven.
This next paragraph is another one of those that sound beautiful. Which doesn’t incline people to look past the beauty to see the evil. What I am referring to is in Matt. 7:1. It says:
“JUDGE not, that ye be not judged,”
How predictable is for the bible to make you all out to be guilty and therefore (in their eyes) unworthy to judge other people. But I am willing to live with any judgement that I deserve. Just as I am willing to live with any judgements I place on others. Now for the sake of argument, let’s say that we were all guilty of something like being backstabbing thieves. I would rather we tried to repress such actions by punishing those we catch doing it rather than not caring or doing nothing about the crimes being committed. Even if somebody guilty of a worse crime judged somebody guilty of a less severe crime, at least some sort of justice would have been served. So Jesus can stick this teaching too. It would have been better if he said something like “judge fairly, that you may be judged fairly.”
The most likely excuse Jesus may have possibly had for saying what he supposedly said in this next paragraph would have been if he believed his own lies. Which wasn’t much of an excuse. In Matt. 10:37, it says:
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
I’ve heard of some big egos, but this is ridiculous! Now I say that those who love Jesus more than their own family aren’t worthy of life. What they said here was probably the kind of crap that allowed things to happen like the reverend Jim Jones handing out the faster acting poison. Though there should be a limit to love for a family member. Which concerns justice. Because your love for a family member who commits a serious crime shouldn’t keep you from turning them in. Because though they may be fond of and protective of a family member, a victim is a victim. And their families are probably equally as fond of and protective of them.
The last paragraph of theirs that I mentioned was bad enough. But they manage to say something even worse in this next one. In Matt. 10:39, it says:
“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”
First of all, I’m not too sure what he was trying to say when he said that those who find their life will lose it. But I don’t like any of the possibilities of what he could have meant by it. Then it basically said that if these people threw away their lives for his sake, they would find it. Yeah, find it’s no longer there. “Holy” people who teach things like this really make me sick. They may promise you an honored place in heaven, or some such dogshit. But you don’t need to die for some religious leader or their varying barbaric beliefs to earn a place in heaven. (if such a place even exists) Living with justice and consideration should be all that is required for that.
One of Jesus’s many warped ideas on forgiveness can be found in Matt. 12:31. It says:
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”
As far as sin goes, there is less incentive for avoiding any sin if you can be forgiven for it. Now from what I have reasoned on this matter, I say that the only sin that should be forgiven is one in which reparations can be made. Then there is the matter of blasphemy toward the holy ghost to consider. To which I say that if it is responsible for the lies and evil I’ve read in the bible so far, it can find somebody with diarrhea and suck on their anus with a straw thick enough to let all of the chunks through.
From what I have read around here in the bible, Jesus meant what he said in this next paragraph. In Matt. 12:43, it says:
“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.”
There are a few reasons why Jesus could have said something so filthy and disgusting. One I mentioned earlier. Which is that in a world where evil happens, to prove the greatness of god, it is necessary to say that he creates evil for some purpose. Another reason for what he said here could have been because there are opposites in the world. Like hot and cold, light and dark, male and female, etc. So since these are a part of life, then along with good, evil must also be necessary. But just because there is an opposite to good doesn’t make it necessary. Evil is called evil because it is wrong. And it is never right to be wrong. Though I don’t mean what is merely subjective. I mean what is really wrong. He may also have said this because anybody without their unclean spirit would have no need for him or god. Though I myself think it would be wonderful to do without an unclean spirit, Jesus and god. So to the contrary of what Jesus tried to teach here, in my opinion, is it those with an unclean spirit in them who walk through dry places and find no rest.
When the bible wasn’t saying things that are unimportant, telling lies or teaching evil, it also liked to use parables. A reason why can be found in Matt. 13:10-11. It says:
“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”
Well I can tell you what I think the main mystery was that he didn’t want people to know. Which is that if you are a believer, you are one of the suckers said to be born every minute. Now let me give you an example of why I think theological parables and the people who use them suck. Say somebody gave you a parable to figure out. And after who knows how long, you came to the conclusion that it meant that the strong or unscrupulous have the right to subdue others. Which is an idea god apparently lived by. Though instead of being given a parable, suppose you were told this outright. Then the time it took deciphering the meaning of the parable could instead have been put to use in deciding for yourself if having the ability to dominate others gives you the right to do so. Which I don’t believe it does. Also, there are those who might say that unraveling a theological parable is meant to exercise the mind. But it isn’t a very good form of mental exercise. Besides, from what they said, making people smarter wasn’t what they were trying to do anyway. Their most likely purpose was to keep people stupid. Or make them think that Jesus was smarter than they were. Both of which would have made potential believers easier to convert and current believers easier to control.
Moving on to the next paragraph, Jesus spoke of what he meant to achieve through the use of parables. In Matt. 13:12, it says:
“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that he hath.”
When they speak of abundance here, it isn’t a very sensible way to refer to knowledge. It most accurately describes wealth, food, possessions, etc. So what this most likely is saying is that those who have this “knowledge” will be able to fleece people and gain things. While those who don’t have this “knowledge” will have things taken from them. This is a pretty dishonorable way of gaining things. Even if it is from those stupid enough to believe any of their crap. Also, if this is what Jesus had in mind with his use of parables, it is a safe bet to assume that this is what he was up to with everything he said. Of all the questionable things religion has to offer, on its own, being made out to be such suckers would make it not worth the price. Let alone all of the other unfortunate teachings.
In the following two paragraphs, Jesus gave a less believable reason for keeping people in the dark. In Matt. 13:13-14, it says:
“Therefore I speak unto them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing they shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:”
Well to deceive people to fulfill some old prophecy is a better reason than the one I pointed out earlier. Though it’s still pretty bad. But I’m not buying the reason he gave here. Another reason he would have had to deceive people he doesn’t mention here. Which is that when people seek out the ability to justify their stupidity, they probably wouldn’t have wanted any real truth he may have had to reveal anyway.
In the paragraph before this next one, Peter rebukes Jesus for saying he was going to die. Then in Matt. 16:23, it gave Jesus’s response. It says:
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things of God, but those that be of men.”
First of all, I think it was going a bit far calling Peter satan just because he didn’t want to hear Jesus say that he was going to die. Because caring about what happens to another person is not an action I would attribute to satan. Then, the reason for Jesus’s anger was basically because Peter chose life over god’s will that Jesus die. But despite what god may have commanded, I would choose life every time! Now there may be things worth dying for, but doing so just so god can gather more suckers into his corral isn’t one of them. If Jesus’s way of thinking prevailed, there would be many misguided people savoring the idea of death at god’s command. But it would in fact be unscrupulous or stupid people telling them that they should die for some cause because it is god’s will. So to tell people that such a death is something to be savored is despicable; evil; vile; contemptible; sickening; grotesque; perverted; demented; etc. etc. etc. etc.
For the most part, I would say there is nothing wrong with teaching people to be humble. But what this next paragraph had to say was going too far. In Matt. 18:4, it says:
“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
Now telling people they should be as humble as a little child is pretty stupid. Because children are apt to be too humble. Which makes them too trusting, easily persuaded and therefore easily victimized by anybody wishing to do them harm. What they said may make it easier to lead people. But if anybody is unable to lead an adult, they shouldn’t be leading anybody.
These next two paragraphs take the idea of forgiveness to the extreme. In Matt. 18:21-22, it says:
“Then came Peter unto him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”
Again, this sounds beautiful, but it is actually sick. Let’s see how many reasons I can come up with for now that I may not have used already. First of all, in my opinion, too much forgiveness would be worse than not enough. For example, anything easily obtained, like forgiveness is here, is easily taken for granted. Which it shouldn’t be. Though if his teaching were followed, it would be. Now most people deserve some forgiveness. But this is too much. In my opinion, forgiveness without limitations is evil. Another thing is that if you do decide to forgive somebody, it is up to you as to what degree they should be forgiven. Because forgiveness is not an “all or nothing” proposition.
I won’t go into specifics on this next matter, but Jesus went on with a story that was meant to teach that you should forgive somebody in hopes that they would in turn forgive somebody else. But who would care about being forgiven by somebody who was in need of being forgiven themselves. Though the main point I wanted to make here is that it would be a morally and judiciously unbalanced world if we all ran around letting those who damage society be held unaccountable. So instead of what Jesus taught in this instance, I say you should forgive only as much as you feel is justifiable. Hopefully, you will set a good example for others.
In not having anything bad to say about this next institution, Jesus must have supported it. In Matt. 19:12, it says:
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Well seeing how the main point of what Jesus taught mentally cuts off your balls, it’s no wonder that he didn’t object to it happening physically. Which is terrible. Now because eunuchs didn’t have a lot to live for besides the service of their masters, they were sought after. I also told you before that I seem to remember hearing something somewhere about parents who would castrate their children to get a better price for them. But even if I was imagining this, knowing what lengths some people will go to in getting what they feel they need, I don’t doubt that it happened. It’s also highly likely that some parents sold their children into slavery knowing that castration was in store for them.
As you may know, some people also did it so their male children would have a more feminine adult singing voice. But I have only disgust for anybody who would support such an institution or allow such things to happen. Also, to be fair, there is something I should say about his saying, “those who are able to receive it, let them receive it,” From what was written in the preceding paragraphs, I would have to say that he wasn’t saying that those able to receive castration should receive it. Another thing about Jesus’s support of making some people eunuchs is that you have to be pretty screwed up to be against population control, but be accepting of castration for the reasons I’ve mentioned.
Jesus told a story in Matt. 20 that had a couple of possible interpretations. One of which I don’t care for. But being a little too lengthy to copy, I’ll just tell you what the story was about. There he tells a parable about a man who hired some people to pick grapes for a penny a day. Over the work day he hires more people. One hour before the workday was over he hired more people. Then at the end of the workday he paid the people who only worked only one hour the same amount as those who worked all day. Which the people who worked all day didn’t like. One possible moral this puts forward is that people should only receive what they agreed to. Which though not being very fair is at least acceptable.
The second moral of this story could be that if you convert or are only good for the last part of your life, you will get the same reward as those who may have converted earlier in their lives or were good all of their lives. Now as far as the conversion aspect goes, the idea of converting to any religion is disgusting. But as far as being good all your life goes, apart from being unfair, it doesn’t give people much incentive to be good earlier in their lives. Also, though I can’t make any sense out of the idea of there being different social ranks in heaven, it seems to me that if being like a child can make you greatest in the kingdom
of heaven, then there should be some benefit there for having been good for longer than someone who hasn’t.
The next story I want to mention had Jesus being just plain mean. In Matt. 21:19, it says:
“And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and he said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away!”
Killing a tree just because there was no fruit on it? What a rotten thing to do! Also, being in Jerusalem, the fruit could have been gone because it was already picked. Which the tree had no control over. This rotten story is retold in Mark 11:13-14. There the reason given for there being no figs on the tree there was because it was the wrong season for them. Though Mark didn’t mention the tree withering. He only mentioned Jesus telling the tree that nobody would ever eat from it. Which may or may not have meant death to the tree. But it was still a rotten thing to teach.
We next have Jesus symbolically promoting the act of cannibalism. In Matt. 26:26, it says:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”
Well there are a couple obvious reasons why Jesus may have taught this. One is that just as cannibals believe they gain power from their victims, Jesus was trying to bestow such power on his disciples. The other reason could have been that from the overpopulation that resulted from what this and other religions teach, he was trying to soften the blow from the cannibalism such overpopulation could very easily cause to come about.
This next paragraph had Jesus asking some Pharisees some questions. One of which would be pretty stupid to anybody who wasn’t Jewish. In Mark 3:4, it says:
“And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on sabbath days, or do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.”
The main part of the question that I wanted to comment on was where Jesus asked if it was lawful to do evil on the sabbath. As if it were actually an option. But evil is never an option. So the answer to that part of the question would be no. It is not lawful to do evil on the sabbath. Or any other day for that matter.
What Jesus had to say to the Pharisees in these next few paragraphs was wrong. In Mark 7:11-13, it says:
“But ye say, If a man shall say to his father and mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father and mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Now I would doubt if those people would have been a