| In order to talk intelligently about Christianity, one must first define what Christianity IS and IS NOT.
Christianity IS NOT about following the teachings of Jesus. If loving one's enemy and/or neighbor or 'turning the other cheek' made one a Christian, then Mahatma Gandhi and Buddha would have been Christians. A set can be described as a group that includes as members "objects" that have properties or characteristics that offer necessary and sufficient reason for belonging to that group. Obviously, there are people who "turn the other cheek" who are not Christians. "Christian" is defined as someone, for their own personal gain and profit, worshiping the torture and death of Jesus, a good and innocent man, so that they themselves can evade being sent to hell by the (sadistic) 'god' named Yahweh. Jesus was a "sin offering" to Yahweh within the context of Pauline Christianity. Notice one thing about the bible. There are countless CLAIMS and declarations that 'god' is good and loving, endlessly benevolent, and so on. Many of these claims are by biblical Jesus. BUT when the bible actually describes what this 'god' (allegedly) DOES, it is usually some sort of horrific evil. "The Fall" and "Redemption" are no exception. I consider Christianity to be an elaborate "Bait and Switch" fraudulent con-game & I consider most Christians to be good people who have been defrauded and conned. Why? Because the good and innocent biblical character named Jesus is the bait and the evil sadistic choice forced on the believer is the switch. Many Christians believe that to be a Christian is to believe in the teachings of Jesus. To try to be "Christ-like". Although (within limits) this is not a bad idea, it is not what being Christian is about. (Jesus was not a Christian by the way. Christianity is a religion that was created anywhere from 50 to 400 years after biblical Jesus died on the cross. Jesus was bringing a New Testament to Judaism."Jesus" (or 'Yeshua') was born a Jew and died a Jew.) As an example, Thomas Jefferson was a "follower of Jesus Christ", that is, he admired the man Jesus (he considered historical Jesus a given) but considered Paul's idea of "magic Jesus" to be absurd and offensive and he considered the gospels to be mostly fabricated bunk. He even wrote his own version of the gospels with an attempt to "purge" Paul and Pauline influence from the NT. Even though (probably for political reasons as well as any other) Thomas Jefferson called himself a "Christian", he did not believe that the man he considered a philosopher, Jesus, to be "Christ" in the New Testament sense. He did not believe in "magic Jesus" or that Jesus was 'god'. So, for the response to the claim that Christianity is evil to be "show me where Jesus' teachings are false or are evil", is illogical and irrelevant. The goodness and innocence of biblical Jesus and the evil of Christianity are two different things and two different considerations, hence 'bait and switch'. Don't confuse the lamb with the axe. In fact, the more good and the more innocent the biblical character named Jesus, the more immoral it is to worship his torture and death for one's own profit. "Vicar" is a term typically used by Catholics to represent someone who acts as a vicarious agent for someone else, a sort of sympathetic magic in the case of 'the fall' and 'redemption'. 'Original Sin' is in theory something that someone else did (or someone else 'opening the door'), and 'Redemption' is also something that someone else did, but in the latter case, one is presented with a choice for this redemption to represent you or not. Make no mistake, even though fundamentalists will deny (lie about) Jesus being a human sacrifice to 'god' to atone for sins by shedding his innocent blood, all one needs to do is to look at Hebrews chapter 9 to see that this is EXACTLY what Jesus is meant to be, and it is only though the shedding of innocent blood that 'god'-Yahweh can forgive anyone for anything. Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Here's the Bait: Jesus was a good and innocent man who called for people to stop throwing rocks at one another. This is the lure, the wiggly worm for good people who are searching for answers to "timeless" questions about "what does it all mean" and "what is supposed to be the meaning of our lives" & "why are we here"? The idea that you are ill-fated to be sent to hell for being naughty is a frightening prospect. The idea that Jesus, the good man, loves you to the extent that he is willing (like a hero father saving his son or daughter) to take your punishment for you. Once "payment" has been made, then you are without sin and "redeemed" (and you need to be baptized also) and therefore either will or probably will get to go to heaven and not hell. There is biblical "proof" that Jesus was a really good fellow, such as his Sermon on the Mount etc. Unfortunately, this is a smokescreen. Here's the Switch: 'god'-Yahweh, who is demonstrably vile in the OT, presents you with a problem. You have "original sin" (whatever you wish to call it exactly). Why that is significant is that NO ONE (without Jesus, but we'll get to that), no matter how good a person they are, will evade being sent to hell because as a bare minimum they have original sin that they "inherited" from Adam. (Eve, aka "The Woman", doesn't really matter too much in Judeo/Christian misogyny). BUT, there is an escape clause (of course). In Pauline Christianity, you WILL (sans Jesus) be sent to hell to be tortured, BUT, there is an option open to you. If you choose the "escape clause" of committing the immoral act of worshipping the torture and death of an innocent man, then you can get to go to heaven. This is the choice every Christian must face. They are told "worship this good and innocent man's death or you will be sent to hell". The believer will undoubtedly say that they are not "worshiping Jesus' torture and death", but they are. They are accepting (and worshiping) him in the role of sacrificial lamb and his blood paying the blood atonement to Yahweh for their sins. What is even more confusing for the believer is that they are told that Jesus was a volunteer. Reading Mark, this is questionable in my mind as 'god's' plan and will' could be considered fate and Jesus asked repeatedly for 'god' to change his plans and to "take this cup from (him)", but ultimately it doesn't really matter because it doesn't change the nature of the choice YOU are being asked to make. For the "guilty" to go free because these guilty accept the terms of sending an innocent man to take their "blood atoning" punishment for them is immoral and evil, even if the 'good' are willing to take the poison needle for them. This isn't a case of someone picking up the lunch bill. To plan and send a good man 'A' to his death and let man 'B' who committed a severe punishable crime go "scott free" is evil and immoral, even if the man to be sacrificed is a volunteer. It is justice denied. The matter is even more muddled by the idea that Jesus "rose again". It doesn't matter. Jesus "rose again" simply to provide evidence that the "debt has been paid", not so that he can live with us on earth or to continue his life. What real difference is there for Jesus to be flesh and blood in heaven or to be a spirit in heaven? This is the Christian's choice that is presented to them. Commit to one of the worst forms of immorality or Burn in Hell. Jesus is the believer's scapegoat, the whipping boy. The innocent sent in to take 'god's' punishment for the guilty. To accept these terms is to accept "father"-planned torture of the innocent as a form of justice, which of course is no justice at all. The 'god' of the bible always demands the blood of the innocent as an atoning "blood price". This 'god' is a rather blood-thirsty fellow. It's a vampire actually. First, it demanded the blood of innocent animals in sacrifice to somehow vicariously "pay" for sins of men. Then it demanded the blood of the innocent Jesus Christ to be the atoning blood price for your alleged sins. It will have SOMEONE'S blood. The blood of the innocent, as in innocent animals or Jesus, or it will have your blood, however 'innocent' one may be. For the guilty to accept the terms of sentencing an innocent to take his "deserved" punishment for him so that he can evade burning in hell is immoral and evil. A 'god' who finds it necessary to plan the torture and death of an innocent man just so he can present the believer with such a sadistic 'gun to the head' choice of choosing between accepting the terms of extreme immorality or personal torture instead, is Evil as defined, fictional or not. 'Strange as it may sound, IF being sent to hell for your sins is really "justice" and IF Yahweh is not unfair and hell is not "cruel and unusual punishment" that does not far exceed the crime, then when presented with the choice of redemption or hell, the moral choice would be to choose go to hell. Even in theory, I refuse to profit from the torture and death of the innocent. I would rather choose to go to hell. Let's consider for a moment if Jesus DID want to sacrifice himself. Well, we know that this isn't true. In Mark chapter 14, Jesus at Gethsemane begged Yahweh, aka "god the father" to "take this cup from me" at least three times. He begged not to be tortured and killed. Apparently he knew his fate was to either be tortured and killed OR Yahweh will torch everyone on the planet. This might make Jesus "good" but what does it make "god the father", the supposedly "almighty" that can't seem to "forgive" unavoidable infractions of third parties without slaying his own son? I think the obvious answer is that it makes "god the father" evil. The Vampire LOGOS |
| Redemption |
| My main theory as to why Christianity is evil |
| Back to, 'Why Christianity is evil' |
 |
|
 |