Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil

All Religions Calling For Human Sacrifices Should Be Outlawed

The Romans believed so, under the Republic. However, after Rome degenerated into tyranny, Roman leaders from Constantine to Theodosius, embraced a religion which called, in semi-disguise, for the mass-killing of “unbelievers”. Thus “unbelievers” rather than “barbarians” became the enemy of civilization. (And right away, Roman emperors welcome all sorts of barbarians in the armies… even the Huns!) Here is Jesus allegedly speaking:

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/luke-1927/

Islam copied all this New and Old Testament violence, on steroids (for example explicitly recalling in the Qur’an that the Bible Old Testament called for a “rain of stones” on homosexuals; so the Qur’an does not order to stone homosexuals, it just says that the Bible orders to do so).

By the way, when a professor from a prestigious US university pointed out, in 1961, that there were barely disguised cannibalistic elements in the Catholic mass, he was thrown out of the university. Yet, Jesus asks to eat his body and drink his blood, there is little ambiguity.

No greater love than loving the cross? Torture What You Love, Love What You Torture. That God has a rather tortured mind. Tortured, thus torturing. In any case, quite a nice religious symbol for tyrants to brandish!

Can we tolerate ideologies which celebrate mass violence and mass murder against classes of individuals who are what they are for biological reasons, or because they practice freedom of thought, or from non-ideological identity? No. Because mass murdering violence invites much more of the same as defense, and before you know it, one will have global mayhem.

***

Al Frommi, in a comment on Aeon, agreed in general with me about Islam, yet made a nuanced (all too kind) interpretation of the Bible. Then he objected to my use of Luke 19;27.

In the case of Islam we should remember most Muslim think they are holier than any body. They put themselves in God place, and proceed to judge and punish depriving people of their God giveen free will. [Part of this comment has been censored by Aeon for contravening Aeon’s community guidelines] They think we are not going to do research on the matter. God punishment of homosexual, is God’s to do not for humans to impose. And God punished them with homosexuality. Not for man to re-punish. The real sin is described in Romans 1: 18- 23 and also Read: Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ( who were those who didn’t accept the knowledge of God. The Romans & the Greeks & the Jews of that time.)

Now, Luke 19:27 is a quote from the Bible that is an illustration said in the form of a story which Jesus was telling his disciples & here is the complete illustrations: Luke 19:

12 So he said: “A man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return…

Dear Al Frommi: OK, my bad. I was reading Luke pretty fast, and I failed to notice, before Luke 19;11, that Jesus was telling a bedtime story about a king, and, although Jesus was speaking in the first person, it was supposed not to be him, talking, but that king. However, the fact one could make such an honest mistake is, per se, a problem. And the overall reason is that Jesus, as depicted by various Gospels, is viciously nasty of the murderous type, as the rest of this essay will make clear.

Indeed violent, extremely injurious and even lethal threats are found in the New Testament. The degree of violence is on a par with the Qur’an, written six centuries later, or the Old Testament, written five centuries earlier. Such a level of cruel, often lethal violence is plenty enough to instill the mood that the divinity (here Jesus) is murderously insane… Thus Jesus’ most significant teaching may not be “love”, but that it is OK, not to say real cool and holy, to be murderously insane in the name of religion.

Problem with tyrannical god: Love is a caress, death terminal. After all, everybody can love everybody everyday, all over again, but killing is done only once.

Here is a sample of Jesus murderous insanity, just in (some of) the gospel of Matthew:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned “with unquenchable fire.” 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the Hebrew god law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any woman commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14. Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 7:19

(If that reminds you of that constant admonition in the Qur’an, that’s no coincidence!)

“The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:12 Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: “Let the dead bury the dead.” 8:21.

Even the beasts are not exempt. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually came to be true, as Christians of various creeds killed each other, as early as the Fourth Century). “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36

(This is a statement similar to Luke 19;27, but, this time, Jesus attributes it to himself!)

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7.

And so on. This was just an appetizer, in some of Matthew alone.

This mood of mayhem is why the Crusade against the Cathars killed 5 million (total, including one million in France alone). At the end of the Sixteenth Century, there was seven religious wars in France alone. The famous massacre of the Saint Barthelemy alone, which was just prior, in 1572 CE, killed up to 30,000 (most of them Protestants).

Oh, and during the First Crusade, Frankish writers and historians themselves, related that Muslim children were roasted and devoured, by the Franks themselves, as part of their holy Crusade (after all, Jesus asks his followers to do just that, to himself… So why not to third parties?)

But the worst was probably the systematic destruction of books, library, intellectuals and thinking which the Christian fanatic launched in 363 CE, with the explicit support of Roman emperor Jovian. That brought the near-collapse of civilization.

All preaching of a literal reading of Abrahamism should be outlawed. And believers should be remembered that the holy texts are just allegory, if not outright fiction.

This, by the way, is how to fundamentally handle Fundamental Islam, also known as “terrorism”. Just outlaw the preaching and public literal interpretations and applications. In particular, all countries with an official religion, especially when it influences the secular law, should be told by those who think, to cease and desist. (Tunisia 90-year-old president wants equality of man and woman in inheritance, contrarily to the present, Islamist Tunisian law, which makes man above woman.)

Jesus is a prophet of Islam. Some texts in Islam holy script say that those who insult prophet Jesus should be killed (the law of killing those who “insult” Jesus was applied in Pakistan, an Islamist State, in the last few years). Hence Fundamentalist Muslims order to kill those who dare to say that evil is evil. When will Western Intellectuals rise as one, and condemn those who condemn, to death, those who condemn evil?

And how could one condemn those who brandish thermonuclear fire, if evil is a protected notion?

Patrice Ayme

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

10 Responses to “Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil”

  1. Judah Michelson Says:

    [Posted in Aeon, as a reply to the preceding:]
    Judah Michelson
    Little, ugly minds should be outlawed, while you are at it. Would spare us the indignity of reading their inanities (“Islam copied all this, on steroids” is probably the most pathetic of them all) in the comments section of a “serious” publication.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hey Judah: Thanks for your reply. However, I am not sure I understand the mood behind your comment. I noticed that (fundamental) Abrahamism is all too prone to human sacrifices (this is the story of Abraham, “offering” the life of his son to god, after all). In other words, little, ugly, cruel and sadistic, murderously minded ideologies should be outlawed… So we agree. So, indeed, it’s all full of pathos, this Abrahamism… At least when literally interpreted…

  2. Luke 19:27 | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] 3) In the Bible’s Old Testament, there are many calls to murder. And so it is, more discreetly in the New Testament. Here is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, indeed, a prophet of Islam, ordering to kill non believers. [Actually, a more careful read shows Jesus was supposedly telling a bedtime story, from a “distant land“. Al Frommi called my attention to that apparently nullifying factor; however the murderous tendencies of Jesus are in plain, unambiguous display in other parts of the Gospels, see: “Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil“.] […]

  3. SDM Says:

    That one needs to point out the atrocity that is the bible is very telling about the human mind. The need to believe is an evil curse upon humanity that is repeatedly exploited. All religion is a nothing more than a con game.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well for the Conquistadores and other Pilgrims, the Bible was a treasure trove of justification. This is how Charlemagne, and Theodosius, 4 centuries earlier, had used it. Even Constantine, the “13th Apostle”, when he needed to execute his son the Caesar Crispus…
      Right now that same spirit can be seen in action in Myanmar/Burma, where the Muslim Rohingyas are hunted like wild beast (OK, they were not smart to Jihad away a bit, but that was in self defense: half of them have no identity…). At this point half of the Rohingyas refugees are children. The three major sub-sects of Buddhism don’t talk to each other, so talking to Rohingyas is beyond their neurology…

  4. Judah Michelson Says:

    Judah Michelson
    (for the interests of full disclosure: this is written by an agnostic Jew)

    Your anti-religious animus is not directed against “Abrahamism” – it is directed solely and exclusively against Christianity. – religion, that, in its current guise is:

    1)The most persecuted religion on the planet; 2) The most peaceful religion on the planet; 3) The most accomodating of other religions. Also, in quite a recent past, it was the ONLY RELIGION (more specifically English Christian Protestants) to outlaw the institution of slavery – the ultimate symbol of human inhumanity to fellow human beings.

    RIGHT NOW, there is only one version of Abrahamic religion that fits your description almost to the letter and yet you studiously manage to avoid calling spade a spade.

    Btw, I would very much be interested to know whether you would refer to, say, the religion of the Aztecs, or the Maya, also as “little, ugly, cruel and sadistic, murderously minded ideologies”? The religious justifications that the Mongols supplied for their version of crusades? Or perhaps the religious justifications Muslims provided for their conquests?

    Concerning the crusades: In the wider Islamic world, crusaders and their tiny kingdoms were barely noticed. You could live all your life in Baghdad or Damascus at the time and not be aware of the existence of the crusades at all. On the other hand, every single Muslim was aware of the siege and sack of Baghdad by Hulegu, with nearly one million dead, and Mongol antics involving feeding their horses from troughs put in mosques. Compared to that, crusaders and their child-roasting antics were small change.

    One last point: you dwell on the historical depredations perpetrated by fanatical Christians nearly two millenia ago. It is not fanatical Christians though who burn books AT THIS DAY AND AGE. It’s not fanatical Christians who run into mosques in the 21st century and behead the imam, while shouting Glory to Jesus and Mary. It is not Christian Greece that translates more books in a year than the entire Arab-Muslim world translated in the past millenium that we have in mind when discussing this horrible “Abrahamism”. (btw, the proper technical term for it is “Judeo-Christian tradition” and without it the world would be a place of the wheel of eternal return where the future is exactly like the past, and life expectancy never extends beyond 40 yrs).

  5. pshakkottai Says:

    India is a civilization but Islam is a War Manual. This is easy to prove.

    Islam is designed for Warfare. India is pluralistic but not gullible in modern times.

    Civilization hierarchy compared to Islam war-making Army Manual

    Civilization follows this sequence:Mother,father,Teacher,family,friends, tribe,village, state,nation,motherland and

    for natural phenomena: one god or goddess for each

    Encourages: figurines, art, literature, sciences, play, temples, plays(dramas), music, dancing, living and performing arts, to promote both emotions and knowledge.

    Fight only for self-preservation, generally hospitable to other ways of life.

    Dharma or common law: puts bounds on acceptable behavior based on reciprocity: (Don’t do to others what you would not have done to you), Free to follow any god or goddess or many.

    Islam reverses the order: Chief in the sky, Mullahs, Father, Mothers and camp followers, Children, Drill 5 times a day prayer with one book

    No loyalty to: motherland

    No: god or goddess except one jealous god

    Discourages and forbids: figurines, art, literature, sciences, play, temples, plays (dramas), music dancing, living and performing arts. Promotes only emotions with destruction of symbols of previous civilizations.

    Encourages and requires: Only one book, Koran, the Army Manual. Single minded devotion to fight and kill which is jihad. Requires destruction of earlier civilizations, like Bamian Buddhas, Greeko Roman Temples, Martand Sun Temple, Nalanda and Takshashila etc.

    Permissible to lie and cheat for Allah. No reciprocity. Cruel and unusual punishments are OK.

    Army rules apply. Court Martial OK for apostasy.

    India didn’t understand Islam and succumbed foolishly. It thought it was just another religion.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for this very interesting contribution, Partha!
      Polytheism had one god per emotion, concept, or big idea.
      Bible-God was the exact opposite: just One to rule over all, just one One to deal with all.
      Islam was indeed Christianism on steroid, a war manual.
      And Islam is indeed as you describe, and the analogy with the Army manual applies fully.
      When people say that Fundamental Islam is not Islam, they show themselves to be wishful thinking hallucinatory ignorant lunatics. This said, there were tolerable (“Sufi”) versions of Islam (not to say that they were not negative for mental development, dues to Allah all encompassing nature…)

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: