The Folly of Christianity and Its Basic Contradictions

Christians have missed the obvious in several ways for over 2,000 years.  First, they have missed the obvious fact that Christianity — taken on its own terms — necessarily implies blasphemy.  If true, this claim would show that taken on its own terms, it must be both a false and evil religion (false religion cannot be good).  By the word “blasphemy,” I intend to indicate here only its most extreme form — cursing God.  Cursing God is so evil, according to the Old Testament, that it calls for the death penalty by stoning.  And yet, the Christian “Gospel” claims that Jesus died:

  1. under the wrath and curse of God (see Galatians and Ephesians) — “cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree.”
  2. God did this.
  3. God the Father would therefore (given the Christian doctrine the Jesus is God the second person of the Trinity) have cursed God.  This meets the biblical definition of blasphemy.
  4. It also implies that — since Christians teach that Jesus represents the Father to all people — that Jesus should have been killed by stoning, not crucifixion.  And given proposition #2 above, God somehow got it wrong (on the blasphemous Christian view).

This proves that, given the relevant Christian (false) teachings of the Trinity and the divine curse of the cross, and its fulfillment of prophecy [rebutted by the Proverb, “do not boast about tomorrow for you do not know what a day might bring forth”].  This shows in brief that Christianity represents the blaspheming of God by defaming His excellent character in claiming that He cursed God, and that this is a death penalty offence.

One should wonder at the proverbs that teach us that a wise man overlooks an insult, and that, while the fool gives vent to his anger at once, the wise man “keeps it in” (restrains himself from retaliatory insults or penalties).  Surely this means that the All Wise Creator would simply overlook such folly (ignore it), refuse to impose any penalty and bring one about only later if it is absolutely necessary — perhaps a spanking and not any extreme disaster.  In this way, Christianity also shows itself very heavy-handed in violation of the light of nature and the principle of Lex Talionis.  The Torah contradicts the principles of the Proverbs in many ways, for instance, in calling for the death penalty for adultery, blasphemy and sodomy — even witchcraft (magicalism).  Even if these should be illegal (and at least some of these kinds of crimes probably should), the penalties they bear should be more like a $500 fine (restitution oriented) — not burning at the damn stake.  Damn.

Ironically, while Christians worry incessantly about swear words (they basically flip out if you swear), they do not mind the death penalty for blasphemy — an extremely wild-ass penalty for what the God of the Proverbs would Himself probably just overlook — and treat as less than a parking violation (If my read is right). In this sense, Christian religion looks even crass (M-effing crass!), and not just false and evil (blasphemous) taken on its own terms.

A second refutation of Christianity is this: given the necessary prerequisites to participate in Melchizedek’s priesthood, Jesus could never qualify.  He is nearly the exact opposite in every way of what Melchizedek was according to the Genesis 14 narrative and the book of Hebrews — without father (e.g. Joseph), without mother (e.g. Mary), without genealogy (e.g. Matthew 1 and Luke 4), without beginning of days (see the Lukan and Matthean birth narratives) and end of life (see the Passion narratives of all 4 Gospels).  The upshot is this — Jesus has no priesthood and therefore has no authorization to offer anything to God that would be acceptable.  He cannot therefore be a savior or a Messiah.

A third refutation of Christianity is that its doctrine of the Fall (visited earlier on this blog) requires two mutually incompatible “veridical states-of-affairs.”  If you had a true theory before the Fall, it would not correspond to the world after the Fall.  This means that — if your theory (in order to be true) now would have to correspond to the present world — it could not have been true before the Fall — since it would live in a different world, where the theory’s central claims would not “match” the world nearly as well (if at all).  The change in the cosmic situation implies a change in “absolute truth” — making truth no longer absolute, but changing — as with cosmological evolution. The change in the cosmic situation also implies a different divine testimony through the creation — two mutually incompatible testimonies as the “dueling light(s) of nature (s).”

A Fourth refutation of Christianity is Genesis 1.31, which indicates the totality of all things ever created by God at the end of six days — with significant omissions.  It leaves out the creation of angels, demons, heaven (a place where God dwells with the souls of departed saints) and hell.   These were never created and so do not now exist.  This contradicts the later OT and the New Testament. Heaven is the covenantal opposite of hell (they go together as a set) and is a present reality in the Old and New Testaments — since angels dwell in God’s presence (heaven) and the Lord’s prayer teaches of your Father “in heaven.”  Angels and demons (see Saul’s evil tormenting spirit) are also a present reality in both Testaments, contrary to Genesis 1.31.

A Fifth refutation of Christianity is the fact that what it regards as “the Word of God” must be necessary, sufficient (to its intended purpose) and eternal.  But this poses an extensive set of problems for the Gospels since there are four of them — if any one of them is sufficient, you do not need the others since they have the same intended purpose [These things are written, John wrote, so that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that by believing you might have eternal life].  But if Mark’s Gospel can do the job, why have 3 others?  They seem unnecessary.   And since none of them has all the necessary material found in Mark, they are not sufficient anyway.  In other words, if any one Gospel suffices, the other are unnecessary (and therefore not the Word of God — but the probably the Word of Zodd).  In all four Gospels are necessary, the not one of them circulating by itself was ever sufficient (nor can be). And so, it back to the Word of Zodd status for all of them.

Finally, while Christians talk endlessly on about free will, it would seem that none of the literary characters in the book of Revelation could possibly have it — there, it is all written in stone beforehand with not the slightest possible deviation from the script possible. In its final chapter, the Apocalypse has “the curse” forever removed (22.3) and then eternally established (upon those add to or detract from the book itself) at the end of the same chapter.  This book was added to the canon illegally by a non-ecumenical council (Carthage, 386) against an ecumenical, catholic council (Nicea) in 325.  So if you allow it in your canon (that is, illegally add it to your canon), you inherit the curse written at the end.

Zodd be praised.

The Ten Commandments Analyzed, Refuted

The Decalogue, A Critical Analysis

My own understanding of the Decalogue has it that it was a rabbinical construction (some would say “Priestly group”) edited many times over the generations to cause it better to conform to the developing self-understanding of the Hebrew-Jewish people as it appropriate context. It was redacted to fit the developing redemptive context, in other words, in which the people saw its own place and God’s rulership and “management style,” as we might call it today, over the covenantal people.

First, we should note that these commandments seem rather clearly to contradict the very notion of the wisdom tradition represented by the Proverbs of Solomon, which neither specify commmandments – the actual proverbs, not the sayings of the Wise – nor are reducible to ten anything.   There are far more than ten lessons there, and they are given as observationally-based inductions, with their concomitant imperatives only implied.

The Proverbs cannot be derived from these, nor are they reducible to these commandments.

Second, if these are as important and seemingly sufficient as some pretend, they refute the 613 commandments of the Torah, and repeat many of them as redundant (and therefore unnecessary).

Third, the tenth commandment, “You shall not covet” is plainly bogus. There can be no legal regulation of what transpires internally only, nor can any penalties be imposed by law externally for their violation. A law without a penalty specified for its violation is a mere recommendation. Torah never names such a penalty. Moreover, desire for material goods is part of what is commanded in the “dominion mandate,” and is a good thing. It even drives markets – Wall Street humorously contrasts “fear versus greed” and the market movers (When greed wins, the markets rise; when fear gains the upper hand, the markets slump). Go greed.

Greed leads to dominion, when properly managed, and lust leads to marriage and children when properly managed. God created both from the beginning, and created all things very good – include the sex drive and the acquisition drive. Solomon specialized in both.

Therefore, no one cannot learn from the abuse of these by watching their results (the point of the Proverbs).

Fourth, the negative statements of these laws is deficient since it shows that they are neither of the light of nature nor could have existed from the beginning.

Fifth, they could not have been written on the heart because they are obviously and uniquely Semitic and Hebrew. They are tied to the Exodus event in the prologue, as are their prohibitions against idols, which assume a unique priestly system in place never mentioned in the Proverbs (priests and priesthood never receive explicit mention in the Proverbs – no not once — because they are not of the light of nature). The second’s commandment’s phrase, “Bow down to nor serve” implies the kind of worship and priestly service that does not exist at all in Christendom, nor in many other religions, and so is not of the light of nature and simply does not apply in those cultures.

Sixth, this Semitic innovation even more clearly represents a Hebrew culture (not the universal of nature’s light which applies to all cultures) in the fifth commandment’s promise — “in the land the Lord your God is giving you” (Israel, not elsewhere).

Seventh, while the commandments acknowledge (as does Torah) that God requites payment for sin doubly, meaning that God judges reflexively always (as like a mirror) – whether to punish or else to reward – he cannot do anything at all reflexively with worship. Worship itself is an overdriven, frenzied kind of response to God’s great goodness to us, for which we are to show gratitude and offer thanks often, but about which we are never to worship – whether God or anything else.

Worship is illegitimate per se.   This point of view is never once considered in the entire Bible. But the light of nature makes it plain that God does not want worship because He cannot give it back. It is not so with love, praise or adoration – fathers can adore their children, but neither can worship the other.

Reflexive judgment disqualifies “worship” altogether as a legitimate response to anyone or anything, ever.   That is the true view of nature’s light. Instead, “You shall love the Lord your God … and your neighbor as yourself.”

I intend to expand this brief critique over the next few days to include a much more thorough look at them, and a far better alternative way of promoting commandments derived from the light of nature (and not surprisingly, from the Proverbs occasionally).