I wonder do those who use "do not judge" and "Jesus said judgement is his job and not our job!" as an excuse for not calling somebody's action sinful or even bad or harmful sense that this man was anything but sincere?  You will notice how selective they are in applying these guidelines.  Religious politicians may use this line when they work with corrupt bankers and all the while judge abortion providers.  Those who say Jesus should do the judging really think that he has no right to judge either! They are putting their moral bankruptcy in his mouth.  They are trying to feel better by insinuating that he is as toxic and morally insignificant as they are.

"You cannot criticise possible or clear immorality unless you have never done anything immoral yourself" is clearly about immobilising those who wish for others to be better.  They see us as a community and a community must correct or come apart. 

Belief in God however remains a threat to those do-gooders who care more about not offending people than bettering them.  How?  Because it opens the door to saying you speak out against the immoral not because you are perfectly moral but because God is the authority.  He makes your speaking out to be for him and not for you or about you.  So you can thus condemn sin while sinning yourself as long as you are trying to do better even if you fail a lot.  You must however include yourself in the bad books.

Jesus said that judgement belongs to God for he will judge those who judge others.  Christians say this does not mean that you cannot challenge immorality when you see a person committing it.  It means it is not for you to decide if they are good or evil or if they have put God out of their soul.  A person can do serious wrong but have a warped conscience so it is not subjectively serious.  But Jesus himself got around that by telling us his judgement,  "If you being evil know how to give your child bread not a stone when he is hungry" - "Evil generation" - "Nobody is good only God".  We know this is dangerous.  Jesus was clearly in Pharisee mode.  They supposedly were going too far.  Surely even they were shocked at how far he went!  If you cannot point to a person's action as showing how maliciously sinful they are that does not matter.  If you label people as criminals that does not mean you can point out any specific crimes.

Atheists and believers will usually argue that judgement matters for if you do bad things you cannot be treated the same as a person who sacrificed to do good things.  They see it is about being pro-good people rather than anti-bad people.  The logic is that the bad person is treating himself or herself as collateral damage.  The intention is to uphold the rights of the just and to do that makes removing rights from the unjust unavoidable. It is not intended but has to happen.

If there is no moral God or God of justice, then there is nobody to leave justice up to.  The argument that we should not judge but leave it to God for he has the power to cripple evil doing falls apart.  So do we have to do the judging ourselves then as dangerous as this is for somebody has to?

But this problem is a fake.  If you think judging is needed you are still involved when you delegate this to God.  And as God is a projection of what you want and think is needed, you are simply

  Jesus might agree with the sayign that bad people are bad fruits and revenge agains tthem is a mistake for the fruits will rot and fall by thsemlves. 



Jesus while he said that you must respect all and be there for them when they are in need did not however tell you to be that person's friend.  If a person is or has been immoral enough, you must help them but they are to remain an ex-friend if they were once your friend.  If they were never a friend they must not be made one.  The exception is when somebody clearly has risen above the evil and is now changed and if you feel inclined to befriend them.  Otherwise it is a case of you being attracted to their friendship beside you relish their evil.

Self-love in Christian circles is about feeling we are great just as we are and is regarded as a sin for it is essentially worshipping ourselves above the God who made us to be our best.  Some whine that the alternative is to loath ourselves.  Christians say tht this self-depreciating is just a new way of putting all the focus on yourself and caring only about what you desire yourself to be and not what God makes you to be or what anybody else wiser than you sees you shoud be.  The Christian position here is risking saying that it is because you over-estimate and over-value yourself that you are depressed for it is hard to live up to and nobody but you will worship you like that.  It blames much depression on inrdinate self-adulation.




According to the Christian Church, we have a duty to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ because he was the Son of God and never knew sin. The Church says it finds this doctrine of Jesus’ sinless life in the Bible.
If Jesus was a liar then the apostles knew and by asking them to do his will he asked them to do evil.

Jesus in Mark 1:41 gets angry when a leper approaches him for healing. Most texts say he got compassionate not angry. Bruce Metzger stated on the matter, "It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ὀργισθείς (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to σπλαγχνισθείς (“being filled with compassion”)...”

As the leper had said to Jesus if he wanted to he could cleanse him of leprosy it makes sense for the text to have meant angry. The gospel does not say Jesus was sinless so Jesus being spiteful would not be a problem. Jesus’ good character is a core matter for Christians so we have here a clear case where a confused text affects doctrine. It raises the question if this man was all kind or had a bad side.

Cruel Caesar stole the homeland of the Jews and heavily taxed them and made dirt of them. Many Jews died on the cross over him. When the Jews came to Christ and enquired about the ethics of paying taxes to him Jesus hastily and traitorously took Caesar’s side, “Pay therefore to Caesar the things that are due to Caesar, and pay to God the things that are due to God” (Matthew 22:21). But the taxes were not lawfully Caesar’s to take and Jesus said that they were. This is terrible though there is nothing wrong with him telling them to pay their taxes. They could have been told to pay out of generosity and not out of a sense of duty. Furthermore, he inferred that all coins that bore Caesar’s image were Caesar’s which is totally nasty and deceiving. And Caesar’s image on the coins do not prove that the money is his by right. Jesus was talking nonsense. Please, don’t argue that the Son of God had to say this to save his skin. The gospels say the Romans were afraid to arrest Jesus for he had too many Jewish disciples (Luke 22:2) so if true he could have criticised Caesar and the paying of taxes. Moreover, a Son of God would not be afraid to speak his mind for no one could get the better of him. And again, Jesus was planning to get killed anyway. Maybe Jesus did not want the people to stop paying for it would only be their undoing. But nobody would know if it would be the worst thing for them to do unless they do it.

This man who condoned imperial savagery to save his own skin was not the Son of God.

Once when the apostles were accused of breaking the Sabbath by picking grain as they walked through a field, Jesus replied that they did right because David and his men ate the holy bread that only the priests were allowed to eat (Mark 2:23-28). Jesus was encouraging theft here because the apostles had no right to take food from the field for they should have got some food the day before. David and his men stole the bread though a common priest gave it to them. The bread belong to the Lord by decree of the Law and David’s men could have hunted for food rather than taking what little bread was there for all the good it would do.

Jesus praised the woman who wasted ointment on him instead of selling it for the poor. Then he expects us to believe that if she gave it to the poor it would be the same as giving it to him for he would gain immense pleasure from it (Matthew 25). He should have sent her to the poor with it. Why help yourself alone when you can help others as well? Jesus cared little for the poor. It was no excuse that the poor will always be with us because anybody could use it though he used the excuse. This was the man who wore his alleged poverty on his sleeve to indicate his sincerity. What need had Jesus for fancy ointment on his feet?

Jesus is saying that morality is not doing the least harm to avoid greater harm. His morality is sheer evil.

Jesus claimed that the more one is forgiven by God the more one loves him and the less you sin the less you love God (Luke 7:47). He cannot mean emotional love. So, he means the more you are pardoned the more you love God by abandoning sin. One could laugh at this. How could one who resists temptation with a struggle and sins little be lesser to a person who sins a lot and then repents? Repentance is easer that living without sin. And anybody can sincerely repent and sin again in two minutes. Try it and see. The woman seems to have been a prostitute and all prostitutes want out of their work so it was easy for her to repent. She knew that Jesus had friends to help her stay off the streets. There was much libertinism in the early Church and Jesus condones it here. He said that we must love God.

Jesus said that time would prove that he was wise when he ate and drank his fill and was friendly with sinners instead of being austere like the Baptist and his followers (Matthew 11:19). But if love is sacrifice then anybody who is not austere is evil. And Jesus partied with sinners distracting them from their duty to think of repentance which was really retaining them in sin. Time could never prove that a man who acted like Jesus did right. At least he admitted by saying that his indulgent actions had to prove his wisdom that the miracles he had did before that to prove he was right were either normal but perhaps divine events or that he made them up.

Jesus said that people should be happy when he is with them instead of praying and being ascetic like John’s people (Luke 5:33,34). But when the Son of God is with you, you need to be as holy as possible because he is there to be your spiritual director and you need to be prepared for his departure and to be his slave after. This is really a slip admitting that Jesus was not God or the Son of God but a fraud.

Jesus said that if a person fell into a hole on the Sabbath you would and should go and pull him out (Matthew 12:11,12). He says this would be right. But the person could stay in the hole when the Sabbath is a day of rest. The person should have had provisions with him in case of such an eventuality. The person should make it good for others to leave him there by deciding that he will offer the misery as a sacrifice to God.

Jesus said that the Jewish practice of children giving what they had for the sake of God instead of helping their parents with it was satanic because God said that the one who curses father or mother is to be put to death (Matthew 15:4). But he asked people to be ready to abandon all for him! And he specifically asked for parents to be forsaken for him. Jesus broadened this rule to the extreme so extremism is right according to him. He was a fine one to talk for he acted as if he was the fountain of knowledge about God and hadn’t even risen yet. Paul’s assertion that Jesus was shown by his resurrection to be the revelation of God indicates that Jesus lived an obscure and ordinary life.

Jesus said that he only paid the temple tax to avoid hurting the feelings of the collectors for he claimed to be exempt for he was the Son of God (Matthew 17). But the Son of God should not be exempt and he was saying here that he was. Jesus did not worry about hurting people any other time. He had a vicious tongue. If he believed that God’s Son should not pay then by paying he was telling them that they should not believe that he was God’s Son or that they should be evil and immature and expect him to pay. I am not saying they should not have expected a man who believed he was God’s Son to pay for you can’t exempt everybody with strange ideas but I am saying he believed they should not have expected him to pay and still he maliciously paid and thus did wrong in encouraging what he thought was sinful.

Perhaps the Son of God should support his own cause? No for there were plenty of others to pay and because the Temple belonged to him. He and his God did enough for it by bestowing spiritual gifts and graces on the worshippers.

Jesus told Judas to betray him (John 13:27) so he was as sinful as him. The gospels make it plain that Judas intended to sin in doing this (John 13:21). Christians may say that Judas already sinned in wanting to betray his saviour so it made no difference where Jesus was concerned and Jesus did nothing wrong. But every moment you have this attitude is a fresh sin. Jesus was encouraging him in the sin of keeping up his sin. Others will say that Jesus knew it was right to get betrayed to die on the cross and from his perspective it was not a sin to get betrayed even if it was a sin for Judas to do it. But he did not tell Judas he was doing right in order to stop him sinning because of his doing the act in the belief that he was doing wrong. It is useless speculation to say Jesus told Judas there would be no sin in a betrayal. Judas would have been less likely to kill himself if Jesus soothed his conscience.

Jesus was a tempter like his Devil. It is odd in Christian belief how Satan is accused of being total evil for asking people to sin but asking only happens in a context that God has created.  And who gives Satan the power to send a message into your brain?  Satan is more than just something to be feared but also hated as a scapegoat.


No Copyright