CHAPTER THREE
STUPIDITY and LIES of the NEW TESTAMENT
First of all, if there any true believers out there who have dared to read this far, I must ask that you set aside any Pavlovian response you may have to what Jesus and Christianity are supposed to represent and let me state my case. Before I begin pointing out the stupidity and lies of the new testament, there are some things I would like to say. First, welcome to asymmetrical warfare. Obviously, more harm has been accomplished with smiles than weapons. From what I have shown you in the bible, and if you know anything about history, you know that things didn’t work out too well militarily for the Jews. So what do you do if you can’t accomplish what you want in one way? You try a different way. This is what humans are and do. We’re pretty good at it. If as I said, we survive, this trait will outlast our current “politically correct” cult. As to how what Jesus represented could be considered asymmetrical warfare, you will be seeing by and by. But one thing that should be clear right now is that it has worked. Now apart from the Jesus thing, there are a couple other forms of asymmetrical warfare. Such as guerilla warfare and terrorism.
As for terrorism, I want you to imagine what the jet passengers felt when they were about to die on 9-11. Think for a moment how the people in the buildings must have felt when they were falling past the face of their buildings on the way to the ground. Knowing, KNOWING, that they were about to die horribly. The media didn’t show these people falling very often. They didn’t want to raise the racial ire of the American public. But it didn’t work with me. You may not believe it right now, but if you are a Christian, you are indirectly responsible for what those people went through. For example, how much authority could Muslims feel that Mohammed has if there were no Christians putting as much faith into Jesus. Sure, Jesus may have taken the carrot approach while Mohammed took the stick approach. But it doesn’t really matter.
All religion, all religious faith is filth! Have you ever seen the movie “Human Centipede?” Well I would like to see Mohammed’s lips sewn to Jesus’ anus. Then I would like to see Jesus suck the maggots out of a putrefied male elephants urethra. If you think some of the things the old testament had to say were sick, wait till you get a load of what Jesus taught! Unfortunately, unlike the other prophets, whose own words were supposed to be written, here we have only second hand accounts of what Jesus supposedly said and did. Which will make it difficult to place the blame for what was said directly on him.
Not surprisingly, we run across a contradiction right from the start. In Matt. 1:1 it says:
“THE book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
And all this time I’ve been told that he was the son of god. Well so much for that idea. Though maybe they figured that because his mother Mary was Jewish, being the son of god enabled him to use his maternal bloodline to claim a paternal bloodline. Also, though they would have you believe otherwise, I don’t think Jesus was any more the son of god than the rest of the Jewish men were supposed to be. As for the women, it doesn’t surprise me that I had never seen anybody say anything about being a daughter of god. Considering the level of traditional and religiously justified maltreatment of women many of the lowlifes in that area of the world still exhibit.
Next, there is nothing around here that tells of anybody being told that Mary was impregnated by the holy ghost. But in Matt. 1:18, it says:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost.”
First of all, espouse means to give in marriage. So somehow, somewhere between the marriage and the honeymoon, Mary was found to have been impregnated by the holy ghost. How did they figure that out. You would think that such an important detail would be worth telling another lie about. But with obedience to your master, what they call faith, being the most important aspect of what this and probably most other religions teach, it’s no surprise that they would find such details unimportant. Also, there is the weird concept of the holy trinity. There is the father, god. The son, Jesus. And the holy ghost. So with the holy ghost impregnating Mary, that would seem to make it the father. But if the holy ghost is the father, how can the father of the trinity be the father.
Jesus was supposedly fasting when he supposedly told the devil what this next paragraph says. So he may have had an excuse for saying something so stupid. In Matt. 4:4, it says:
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
I don’t know where what he said was written. But one of the problems I have with it is who decides what it is that god says. Just because somebody says god said something is no reason to believe them. Also, let’s set aside for now the other negative aspects of religion. Just considering some of the things that god had supposedly said, if your diet consists in part of what he said, you’re not only mentally anemic, but also morally riddled with scurvy. Then let’s consider the devil Jesus was supposedly speaking to here. With god supposedly being the cause of all evil, along with everything else that happens, isn’t creating a devil a little redundant?
The statement Jesus made in this next paragraph is a little askew. In Matt. 5:22, it says:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
So to call somebody raca will make you in danger of the council. Whatever that is. But calling them a fool will put them in danger of hell fire. Which would seem to be even worse than being in danger of the council. But raca is something you call somebody in contempt. Which is worse than calling somebody a fool. Because we all act foolishly from time to time. And being called a fool leaves the path open for discussion as whether or not a foolish act was indeed foolish. But contempt is likely only to be responded to with contempt. So it was the person showing contempt that should have been in danger of hell fire. And the person calling somebody a fool should instead have been in danger of the council.
What this next paragraph had to say is excessively moralistic garbage. In Matt. 5:28, it says:
“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
I am going to assume that Jesus was speaking of married men here. But as the old saying goes, “just because you`re married doesn`t mean you`re dead.” Also, there’s a big difference between thinking adulterous thoughts and acting on them. Another thing is that it’s healthier for men and women to lust after each other. As long as there is no overt display of misplaced or unwelcome desire. Any sort of mental lust is also likely to lessen the possibility of their lust turning toward some sexual perversion.
For another good example of bad advice, let’s go to Matt. 5:30. It says:
“And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members shall perish, and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell.”
What I believe this is saying here is a parable. Which as you will be hearing more of later, I don’t like. Now what I think he was trying to say here is that you should be willing to go to whatever extreme of penance is necessary to make up for a misdeed. Though I myself don’t believe that if you are penitent to begin with, such extremes of penance would really be necessary. Also, it’s likely that the regret for any offence would be felt because of its effect on others. To which a personal punishment isn’t likely to do much good. So he would have been better off saying that they do restitution in some manner and in equal measure, on top of what they may normally do, to make up for any wrong that was done.
The teaching Jesus supposedly gave in this next paragraph is bordering on the “evil” category. In Matt. 5:40, it says:
“And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.”
The purpose of any such action would likely be to make the person who sued them feel guilty for suing them. But if you deserve to be sued, the person suing you shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for doing so. Maybe they could look at
being sued as somebody cutting off an offence hand and casting from them, for them.
Then, a reinforcement of my assertion that such an action was meant to make the other person feel guilty can be found in Matt. 5:41. It says:
“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”
Again, I would have to assume that the purpose of going farther than you are compelled to would be to make the person compelling you to do so feel guilty for compelling you to go any distance at all. Which isn’t right. Also, what if the compeller is in the wrong. In such a case, going with them even one mile would be wrong. Because wickedness should always be fought. Though the way they would have you go about fighting it is stupid. One reason being that if you give a wicked person more than they ask for, they will be at least as likely to take advantage of you or somebody else again as they would be to feel guilty. You need to rely on more than a possible emotional guilt to keep them from doing the same sort of thing again. Another thing is that the wicked probably have quite a number of philosophical justifications for doing the sorts of things they do. Which, though being stupid, may seem profound to them. Such as not wanting to be made a sucker by “taking it” without “giving some of it back.” Then you have to take into account the more insane justifications they may have for doing the things they do. Any guilt you could make them feel, especially by the means they suggest, would likely mean little in the face of such justifications.
Another example of Jesus being wrong can be found in Matt. 5:46. It says:
“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”
What this seems to be saying is that the more you love, the better it is. But the way I see it is that if you spread your love around too thinly, it will become thin for everyone. Also, to the contrary of what he says, I would have to say that giving and receiving love from those close to you would be much more rewarding than doing so with a stranger.
Next, Jesus’s idea about giving alms doesn’t seem to be too helpful. In Matt. 6:3, it says:
“But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:”
Now I don’t know how many different kinds of coins they used back then. But it seems that it would have been pretty difficult for them to give somebody alms without knowing how much they were giving them. Though if it could be done, it could work out well for the needy or not so well. As if their form of welfare back then wasn’t inconsistent enough for the poor bastards. Now being the son of god, you would think that Jesus could have come up with and promoted a better form of welfare than this. Which he probably could have if, like most if not all other religious leaders, he didn’t likely have more interest in people’s faith than interest in the people themselves. Though to be fair, the patriotic fervor secular leaders try to instill in their fellow citizens too often isn’t a lot better.
The views on the subject of forgiveness that the new testament teaches range from misguided to outright evil. The first example from the new testament that I would like to comment on concerning this subject is in Matt. 6:14. It says:
“For if ye forgive men their trespass, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:”
The first thing I would like to say is that to forgive somebody so god can forgive you is a rather selfish reason for doing so. It would also have been nice if they told you here to what extent you should forgive others. Because as I said before, there is a place for forgiveness. But there are limits. Besides, most wrongdoers probably wouldn’t have committed the wrong acts that they did if they were deserving of forgiveness. Another thing is that even the most wicked of people would probably like to be forgiven if they were held accountable for some misdeed. Which likely wouldn’t do much good. Also, what they say could be used as a ploy by the wicked to be forgiven their crimes. That by openly forgiving somebody for their minor or infrequent crimes, they could seek forgiveness for their more severe or more frequent crimes. Though I wouldn’t be interested in any forgiveness from the wicked anyway. Yet another thing is that though there are different levels to which somebody can be “forgiven,” I would have to say that you should only forgive others if you think they are deserving of it.
Also, for some analogies on forgiveness, what if you always forgave a puppy for urinating on the floor instead of punishing it. How long do you think it would take for it to stop doing it. Or if you always forgave a child for doing something wrong instead of punishing it. Somebody else sooner or later would likely have to deal with their misbehavior. Etc. Giving out punishment instead of forgiveness may be a bitter pill to swallow, but you have to do what you have to do. Another thing is that if somebody has wronged you and you can’t find it in yourself to forgive them, you should try and not let the anger of what they did eat away at you. Because it would likely do more harm to you or those around you than the offender. So if the law can’t help you and you’re not guilty of the same sorts of actions yourself, etc, I would recommend an appropriate revenge.
These next paragraphs tell a pretty poor story. But it is a little too lengthy to copy. So I’ll just tell you what happens. In Matt. 8:28-32, it tells a story of Jesus coming across two people who are possessed by devils. Now these devils must have been gluttons for punishment. Because they ask that if they are to be cast out that they be put into a herd of swine. So with more regard for the devils than the poor innocent pigs, or their owners, Jesus puts these devils into the pigs. Then the whole herd runs down a steep embankment and drown. So what’s the moral of this story. That you should never give a devil a break? Maybe it’s that animals deserve no regard. Or maybe it’s that a devil can fool even Jesus. Though maybe they were trying to teach that even Jesus can make a mistake. Just as god had apparently done in the past. Whatever they were trying to teach here, luckily I don’t care.
In these next two paragraphs Jesus answers his disciples question as to why the Pharisees fast often and they don’t. In Matt. 9:16-17, it says:
“No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”
First of all, I’m not going to go into the faulty aspects of these statements this time. But what I think he was trying to say here is that their new religion shouldn’t be tied to old customs. Though what I really don’t like here is the way he answered their question. Because if he had something to say, he should have just said it. He shouldn’t have tried to make some sort of long winded word puzzle out of his answer.
One of the things this next paragraph says Jesus supposedly did was not only useless, but probably harmful. In Matt. 11:5, it says:
“The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”
Well most of the things this says Jesus supposedly did seems nice enough. But all the poor get is the gospel preached to them? Big deal! Now having been poor most of my life, I am as much of an expert on the subject as an observant American can be. From personal experience I know that it often means that you don’t eat well; can’t afford transportation; have inadequate places to live; (not counting the time that I had no place to live at all) have poor clothing; have trouble keeping clean; can’t afford to date; are worthy only to associate with the often damaged people of your social status, etc. Neither did these things give me much desire to bring children into this world to share my plight. And knowing that there was a good chance that I would eventually be thrown in jail for doing so didn’t help much either.
These things were made even worse by things being so bad that the average literate laborer like myself would have had trouble finding employment even as a slave. Then, back when they had welfare, the harassing harpies of the welfare system would grind any self respect you may have managed to salvage into the dirt. Even though they themselves were quite adept at the absorption of public funds. Believe me, I could go on and on about this subject. Not only about the problems of poverty, but more importantly about equitable and humane solutions to it. And I can guarantee you that preaching the gospel to people isn’t one of them. Especially in a religion that is accepting of the concept of slavery. All preaching to people would likely do is make them more accepting of a bad situation that most probably don’t deserve. So anybody who thinks that trying to get people involved into a fantasy world as a solution to poverty can suck it! And suck it hard!
From what this next paragraph says, heaven isn’t a very good place to be. In Matt. 11:12, it says:
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.”
I wonder what god was doing while his kingdom was being taken by force. Unless they meant that the kingdom of heaven was here on earth. Which doesn’t make any sense. Now this violence means that either the entities in heaven or those who took it by force were screwed in the head. This too is a scatterbrained thing to teach. One reason being that with things like this going on even in heaven, it doesn’t set a very good example for people here on earth. Also, any believers out there would be making a pretty poor assumption in thinking that the violent may turn out to be nice. So in the unlikely event that there is a heaven waiting for them, they shouldn’t be too surprised if it doesn’t turn out to be as nice as they hoped.
In an argument between Jesus and the Pharisees, they both surprisingly admit that Moses was lying. As you can see, in Matt. 19:7-8, it says:
“They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
Well from what I remember reading, Moses did very little, if any, commanding on his own. He supposedly only repeated the commands god told him to tell others. But the Pharisees didn’t ask why god commanded Moses to say what he did. Neither did Jesus suggest that god was behind the law that Moses gave. They say Moses did it. Which would seem to make Moses out to be a liar. And if Moses was a liar, so was Jesus, the Pharisees, and anybody else who spread this “word of god.”
Moving on to the next paragraph, Jesus gives his views on divorce. In Matt. 19:9, it says:
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
I’m glad that despite religious dogma, our morality has evolved since those days. I myself believe that people should be allowed to divorce if they feel the need to. Forcing people to stay together is no answer. Though for the health of the society which they themselves depend on, they should first think clearly about the commitment they intend to make and try to stick to it if they make that commitment. Also, look at some of the more politically barbaric and socially stagnant countries where some women go to the extreme of setting themselves on fire to get out of a bad marriage. (though I have only heard of this in arranged marriages) This is one reason why I say that if a man is able to “put away” his wife, a wife should be able to “put away” her husband too.
Also, while we’re on the subject of treating women badly, look at how women in Muslim countries are often treated. To me the only difference between a collar and leash and the coverings they often make their women wear (or brainwash them into wanting to wear) is that somebody has to hold on to a leash. Women deserve better than this. And as for the men, on the one hand, they probably love their mothers. But on the other hand, they must often look at them as such lowlifes that they need to be kept under strict control. I just can’t see how anybody can hold such divergent feelings and still be sane. And the world could use less reasons for insanity. Now getting back to the subject at hand, it also says here that anybody who marries a woman who is “put away” commits adultery. But it is unrealistic to expect a woman who is “put away” for whatever reason to dig a hole and bury herself. Though the vast majority of women who are “put away” wouldn’t be deserving of that fate anyway.
This next paragraph had Jesus repeating some scripture. In Matt. 22:32, it says:
“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not a God of the dead, but of the living.”
What Jesus seemed to be getting at here is that there is life after death. Because with the people mentioned here being dead, if god is their god and he is a god of the living, then they must be living. But if there were some sort of existence after death, I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it life. So it would be stupid for anybody to throw away this life in hopes of living the kind of life we live here in some afterlife.
A small example of the afterlife that Jesus promoted can be found in Matt. 26:29. It says:
“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Now even though I don’t know what it would be like to be a ghost, I find it difficult to believe that drinking ghost wine in a ghost world would be the same as drinking physical wine in our physical world.
How would you react if you were a Pharisee back in those days and you saw somebody’s withered hand restored before your eyes on the sabbath. Well in Mark 3:5-6, it says:
“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.”
Now the reason they were so mad at him was because he did this miracle on the sabbath. But I find it hard to believe that they would be more mad at him for performing this miracle on the sabbath than they would be impressed by the miracle itself. Also, if they were mad enough at Jesus for performing this miracle on the sabbath that they would want to kill him for it, I find it hard to believe that they would go straightaway to plot against him on the sabbath. I am dubious about the whole story. Especially the miracle part.
This next paragraph asks a stupid question. In Mark 3:23, it says:
“And he called unto them, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?”
I should first tell you that the reason he said this was because of the supposed miracles he did, there was speculation that he could be the devil. So it asks here how satan can cast out satan. Well if such a creature existed, I can’t see it having any trouble fooling people by misrepresenting itself and putting on a good show by appearing to cast out evil.
The writing in this next paragraph is even more terrible than usual. In Mark 11:11, it says:
“And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went unto Bethany with the twelve.”
So it says here that Jesus went into the temple and looked around. Then it jumps to saying that the even tide had come. Their statement would have been a little more coherent if they had only said that Jesus looked around “until” the even tide had come. Though to be fair, in copying this, somebody may just have accidently left out some words.
Next, we’re given an unlikely story about the crucifixion of Jesus. In Mark 15:37-39, it says:
“And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.”
I would first like to say that Jesus must have given one hell of a yell to make the centurion think that he was the son of god. But they don’t say that he yelled to any phenomenal degree. Nor do I think it would be impossible for him to yell loudly at what the centurion perceived to be the point of death. So from what is written here, I don’t know what the centurion could have based such an assumption on. Now the lies Matthew told about the event were more exciting. With the earthquakes, rocks being rent and the graves opening with many bodies of the saints rising. And the reason I call them lies, apart from the obvious ones, is that Mark would have had every reason to tell of these events also. But since he didn’t, I have even more reason to doubt the whole story.
Part of what happened after Jesus supposedly rose from the dead is what this next paragraph talks about. In Mark 16:12, it says:
“After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.”
I have no doubt that what supposedly happened here would be explained as Jesus testing their faith or some such stupidity. But I would have to say that it is spectacularly stupid to tell people that you are going to raise from the dead and then appear in another form.
Jesus had a cousin named John the baptist. I find it suspicious that he too was in the prophet business. This next paragraph has him giving some rather strange advice to some soldiers. In Luke 3:14, it says:
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”
Well if these soldiers didn’t do violence to people, they should be content with their wages. Seeing how they wouldn’t be earning them. Though to be fair, he could have meant that they do no violence to men outside of duty. But if that is what he meant, that is what he should have said. Now there may be some out there who would say that doing no violence outside of duty was what he was inferring. But given the often excessively peaceful teachings of Christianity, you can’t be too sure that he didn’t mean that they should do no violence to people while they were on duty too. Also, I don’t like his telling these soldiers that they should be content with their wages. Because it suggests that you should be too. Though given things like inflation and the greed of employers, the eventual result would likely be virtual slavery. Now as far as inflation goes, the best way to fight it and other unfortunate things is with an economic system that is based on stability and conservation. Not growth and waste.
Then as far as the greed of the rich goes, you have to take into account that they are as greedy as anybody else. If not more so. Despite having more to begin with. To rearrange an old saying, “They’ve got most of the bread, but they want cake. There’s no end to what they’ll take.” Which is unfortunate. Though generally speaking, there’s nothing wrong with being rich. I just feel that commanding a larger share of resources than others, or the time of workers, should result from performing a proportionally difficult and valuable service to mankind. On this matter, I saw something unfortunate about a taxi driver in Moscow once. He was a physicist. If I remember correctly, he drove a taxi not because he was unemployed, but because he could make more money as a taxi driver. Even though being a physicist to me is more useful to mankind than being a taxi driver is. Apparently being content with his wages didn’t seem to be a very good idea.
Coincidentally, the rich are one of the kinds of people Jesus spoke of in these next few paragraphs. In Luke 6:24-26, it says:
“But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation.
Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep.
Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers unto the false prophets.”
Here he first speaks poorly of the rich. Suggesting that they won’t go to heaven. But there’s always the chance that they deserve the things they have because of fair dealings and hard work. There’s nothing wrong with that. Then he tells those who are full that they will hunger. But there’s nothing wrong with having food. It sure beats being hungry. Besides, I would rather be full now rather than take a chance on believing the crap that Jesus spread and be hungry now. Another thing is that striving for a comfortable living isn’t easy. So generally speaking, I see nothing wrong with succeeding in it. It then says woe unto you that laugh now. Suggesting that you will mourn and weep in the afterlife if you do. But as long as merriment isn’t excessive or out of line, again I see nothing wrong with it.
Then it says woe unto you if people speak well of you because th