Christians are Hypocrites
Click this index to navigate this site~
THE HYPOCRISY
ABOUT NEWSPAPERS
JESUS’
BATTLE WITH THE CHARLATANS
Foreword
The thing that turns most
Christians, who leave their religion, off Christianity is the shocking
hypocrisy displayed by this faith. The
clergy are the worst offenders and soon have the most dedicated of the
congregation as bad as themselves. The
hypocrisy is far worse than many of the ex-Christians notice. It is those who know their religion better
that see just how deceitful and hypocritical religion is. And that is something we must try to get
across. And that is the task that this
study seeks to undertake.
ARTIFICIAL MORALITY
Actions are either wrong in themselves or wrong because of the bad results. Christians generally mix the two positions but if the first is true then consequences never matter and if the second is true then actions being wrong in themselves is nonsense. For example, the Roman Catholic Church claims that homosexuality is wrong in itself irrespective of any bad consequences and then says that just war is right because of the bad consequences of not fighting the enemy. This changing things to fit what they want to believe shows that hypocrisy is at the root of their spirituality.
The Church has society using f for fuck and c for cunt when reporting what somebody said or whatever. When people hear the f or c they know what it means and so the Church may as well use the word fuck and cunt. The hypocrisy is astonishing.
Another proof of this is how
they say that hating a person is never right and then order us to hate sin
which is hating the sinner. Jesus
commanded us to hate sin intensely when he said that if your hand causes you to
sin cut it off to signify that extreme hatred of sin is his law. If you love God with all your heart as Jesus
commanded you will automatically hate sin with all your heart. None of us will live long if we start that
for the stress would destroy us. But he
said we must carry our cross and die for him.
You can’t separate the sin from the sinner for the sinner is the free
creator of the act. Suppose you hate
blue and want to destroy it. Suppose
your white tablecloth turns itself blue of its own free will. Can you really love the tablecloth as much as
before? It has become blue which you
hate. You cannot love it. In the same way the sinner becomes sin and to
hate the sin is to hate the sinner. It
is the people who do not hate sin that we find likeable. He who says he loves you and hates your sin
is a liar. If you believed that you
would not take offence when people chastise you for your sins. Even when the sin is forgiven you still have
to hate it for it still existed and is still evil. You forgive a person rather than a sin which
is admitting that the sin cannot be separated from the sinner so the sinner
deserved to be hated. Yet the Church
teaches now that nobody deserves to be hated.
Its all simpering hypocrisy and contradictions. The Church knows its hypocrisy for the Church
doesn’t shrug off criticisms of its sins saying that it is the sins being
condemned not the Church being condemned as sinful. It takes offence for it knows that sin is not
something that is separate from the Church when the Church sins but something
more. To condemn sin is to condemn a
person as a sinner.
Love your neighbour as yourself
which is the second greatest commandment of the Christian faith having been
laid down by Jesus is hypocrisy.
Self-preservation is the strongest power and instinct in us so you
simply cannot care for a stranger as much as yourself. You cannot love a sinner and hate his
sin. As Jesus said, you cannot serve two
masters God and anything else. So how
can you serve God and serve your self-preservation instinct?
To love God above all as Christ commanded and to love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should be responsible in your religious activities and attitudes. Since God comes first it is more important to be responsible in religion than in your own family. But nearly all Christians are theologically illiterate and have no interest in learning their faith better and why their religion does what it does. They are treated as good people despite the greatest sin possible: irresponsibility.
Christ commanded that if somebody does wrong to us many times a day we must forgive him or her as many times. Christianity commands anger against sin when it demands that we hate sin and love the sinner. It pretends that when it commands us to forgive that it cares about us. It does not when it commands us to anger. And hating sin is just as bad for us if not worse than hating sinners. The doctrine of Jesus Christ that we should forgive others no matter how cruel or awful the wrong against us and that God will help us do so means that if after the most horrendous crimes against us we cannot forgive (put yourself in the position of the victims in Wolf Creek) it is our own evil fault if we fail or don't. A religion or God or prophet that tells you that you should (meaning you can and ought to) give pardon to scum is evil. Do it in your own time when it is best for you. Ignore them. There is enough guilt and sorrow in life without listening to them.
The Christian Religion has plenty to say against sex on television but hardly anything against violence. The Christians and Catholics adored the sick snuff movie, The Passion of the Christ though it was replete with violence. The poisonous religious influence has stopped hardcore porn and images of sexual penetration being shown on television. The censors won't have it. But filmmakers, why not make synthetic erect penises and show them entering synthetic vaginas? That way real actors could perform sex scenes and filmed in such a way to make it seem that they really had sex when they didn't.
MURDERING THE FAMINE STRICKEN
If I am sure that taking someone’s medicine out of their grasp will kill
them as surely as poison would then I am murdering that person. Some would say that I am not because death
need not result but I am. I mean for
that person to die for if I did not I would try to help so if the person dies I
become a murderer. If I am not a
murderer, then to stab a person to death is not killing them for they don’t
have to die- there is a chance they could survive. There would be no such crime as murder. A murderer is a person who tries to kill or
kills and who intended to kill. I am
more of a killer for not feeding the poor in
Killing people is as bad as allowing people to die for the reason killing
is bad is because it results in death.
Is it murder to have and keep what we have while the poor – particularly
in
Religion says that it is not for we have a greater reason to hold on to
our money. But then it says that human
life is absolutely valuable – just another mask it puts on for the traditions
of the Church and the Bible, God is believed to have written the Bible through
men, are full of commands that make it a duty to slaughter murderers and
heretics. The Church says that it is
better to suffer horrifically when you are dying instead of being sent on your
way. It puts life above the alleviation
of suffering.
Some say it is not murder because there is no malice but
indifference. But indifference is malice
for it is refusing to love. It is
crueller than plain malice. The person
who hates you will care about you to some extent. The person who neither loves or hates you
does not care what happens to you. The
person who kills because he does not care is as much a murderer as the one who
cares about killing you.
Some say that it is too hard and heroic to sacrifice yourself and your
property to save others so it is not murder if you refuse to do it. But we don’t love our wealth all the
time. And also, it is murder to kill a
person even if it is hard not to kill them.
It is hard not impossible. What
could be more heroic than to put God first in all things the way Jesus
commanded? Christianity has a
double-standard in relation to heroism.
The Sermon on the Mount has Jesus demanding very difficult standards of
morality and he says he doesn’t compromise for you have to be either for him or
against him.
Some even say that when you go out and stab somebody to death you know
who you killed but if you let the missions starve it is different for you don't
know who died so it is not murder! But
you can be a murderer if nobody knows you have killed or who you have
killed. Your inaction kills and that
makes you a murderer even if nobody can point to a person and say you murdered
him or her.
Some say that you break no law by starving the poor so you are not a
murderer if they die. But law is only a
human construct. You still caused deaths
and the law of right and wrong exists regardless of whether or not there is a
human law making a prohibition. Today
many believers regard executioners as murderers though they don’t know who they
have killed and though they kill in obedience to human law.
Others say that I did not cause the starving and that people would be
starving if I never existed. But I am
causing the starving by not doing all I can about it. People would be starving if I never existed
but since I exist I should be making sure they are better off because I
existed.
Some say that you don’t know what will be done with the money you donate
so you are not blame if anybody dies because you did not give. Then give yourself and your life and your
time and work among the people. Set up a
charity that can prove that money saves lives.
Many of these excuses for saying we are not murderers for allowing the
starving to die are in the Utilitarian Peter Singer’s book, Practical Ethics,
Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). The alleged differences between killing the
starving by neglect and murder “need not shake our previous conclusion that
there is no intrinsic difference between killing and allowed to die” (page
224). How wrong he is. He is just telling lies to get of the
undesirable implications of the truth.
He is really approving of murder.
Imagine how unjust then it is for the likes of him to condemn the killer
who goes around stabbing people to death!
It is hypocritical to say that it is not our duty to save the starving
with our money because it is our duty to do what is best. If we deny that we deny that there is such a
thing as right and wrong. The notion of
good acts above the call of duty does that.
The Church says that though we say we own things on earth we actually do
not. Everything is God’s property. Would God then want you to have £1000 in the
bank and not give it to the poor as if keeping it was more important than human
life? Christ said in the Sermon on the
Mount that if a man takes what you need from you let him take more than that.
The Roman Catholic believes that nobody can enter Heaven or Purgatory
while adhering to mortal sin, or if you prefer, grave or serious sin. The only place for them is in the Hell of
never-ending torment. The Church lays on
us the duty to correct all mortal sinners for leaving anyone in it is a mortal
sin. I think what comes next is the most
effective proof that Roman Catholicism is nourished by self-deception.
Protestantism holds that conversion to Christ reduces sin so it is as bad
for not doing a better job of reaching sinners.
Murder is just one mortal sin. It
is a mortal to do anything that unjustifiably leads to the death of
another. The biggest sins we commit are
sins of omission. For example, we spend
money on comforts that should be spent on those who need it more, whose lives
may even depend on it. We have no excuse
for God has promised to take care of all who make great sacrifices for the poor
(Matthew
Christendom’s approval of our murderous negligence towards the starving
is unadulterated hypocrisy and is the kind of doctrine that makes
murderers. The clergy of
The hypocrisy of the Church and its defiance of the Sermon on the Mount
shows that the miracles and apparitions it brags about must be from Satan for
they praise the Church. They invite
people to holy communion which is only for people who are clean from serious
sin indicating their approval for the accepted hypocrisy of the Church.
Christians say that life is so precious that euthanasia is wrong. If life is so precious that nobody should
kill you to save you from a lifetime of screaming and suffering then how can
they let doctors give painkillers to dying patients that will make them die
quicker? If life matters most then we
have no right to put the eradication of pain first. They are hypocrites. They let you murder the famine striken but if you need death to save you from hell on
earth they forbid it to you!
SMOKING AND LAUGHTER
Like Jesus, the world says that life is worth more than food and
pleasure. If the Christians really
believe that life should not be put at risk by pleasure then they should forbid
smoking. Smokers reason, “If I or
anybody else gets lung cancer over smoking then so be it and I am putting this
moment of pleasure first”. That is not a
very caring attitude is it? They don’t
care about those who care about them.
But in the double standards of the Church this is okay!
The Bible says that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which seems
to be against things like smoking.
But smoking very few cigarettes would seem to be harmless except that it
does give bad example. Nobody after all
started smoking wanting to smoke more than 5 or so a day!
The Catholic Church forbids contraception because it is treating God’s
gift of fertility like there is something wrong. It is forbidden under all circumstances so
the Church slanders people who know they have no choice but to use
contraception for a pregnancy could kill the wife by saying they are
sinning. Yet the unnatural use of the
lungs which God made to breathe air to live is accepted! The popes have smoked and their cardinals.
Laughter is said by some to be irrational “for it is finding pleasure in
what is irrational and in coincidences.
There are many coincidences that we don’t laugh at. We laugh at the mistakes of others which is
taking pleasure in their weakness and sin.
To laugh when a man finds his wife in bed with another man is taking
enjoyment out of sin. Irrational means
wrong so laughter is finding pleasure in evil.
It is being glad that evil has happened.
The person who is not offended by laughter is letting you degrade her or
him. It is a sin to laugh at
yourself. When you laugh at a comedy on
television you have to feel that what you see on the screen is true before you
can really enjoy it so you are still laughing at and celebrating evil”. If there is a God then this is true. God says we are all sinners and we must hate
sin above all evil. Jesus said that if
your eye makes you sin gouge it out – this was to tell us that we must hate sin
totally. If you love God with all your
heart as he commanded then you must hate sin with all your heart for it is the
opposite of God. If there is no God then
it is more important for us to gain pleasure from irrationality than for us to
hate it when it can be found amusing. If
you think only of God who is so unlike a person that it is amazing he has any
fans you will not be able to laugh. But
don’t Humanists say that what is irrational is forbidden? But life is a matter of deciding between what
is most rational and least irrational.
Laughing is rational for we are made to laugh. Would it be rational not to let yourself
laugh when nature wants you to?
When you laugh at a comedy it is because you temporarily suspend
disbelief and think that it is really happening in front of you. If laughing at others is a sin so is this.
Laughter is good for you and that is the strongest reason for permitting
it – God would disagree for he says you must give your whole self to faith in
him meaning you should be ready to die for him if necessary. If there is a God he will see to it that you
can do without it so it would be a sin if there were a God. He does not allow lies though they are often
good for you so he will not like anybody who does not walk around with a face
like a lost eternity.
Laughter is a sin.
TRANSPLANTS
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Organ transplants are
not morally acceptable if the donor or those who legitimately speak for him
have not given their informed consent …It is morally inadmissible directly to
bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order
to delay the death of other persons” (entry 2296).
Many of us would see hypocrisy at this point and would think, “Obviously,
it would be a sin not to become a donor and donate as many organs as possible
despite this religious system says if life is what comes first. Life does come first even if a person refuses
to be a donor their organs should be taken.
The relatives should think of it as something good that has to be
done.”
They would add: “The brain-dead person on life-support cannot speak for
herself or himself anymore. So we should
take it for granted that if they knew what good they could do they would
consent even if they died defiant to the end when requested to become organ
donors. Their relatives cannot speak for
them when for all we know they could have changed their minds just before
expiration. It is none of the relatives’
business. But having said that this may
be true it cannot be put into practice.
The burden of relatives and victims being afraid of organs being taken
without consent will outweigh any good done by just taking the organs. It will in some cases make relatives
unwilling to seek medical help in the mistaken belief that the person is dying
anyway and it is best to keep them out of hospital. It is hypocrisy to allow killing in war and
not enforced organ donation. It is
hypocrisy to accept that it is right to conscript young men and send them to
the battlefield against their will and to say that people should not be put to
death where their organs could save more lives.”
The same people could say, “When the homosexuals in
The relatives would be right to put a stop to operating on persons who
could come round.
Very evil criminals should be killed to provide organs if it is true that
we have free will. An evil person should
be sacrificed when the alternative is killing a good person. This however is not capital punishment or
degrading the criminal. We reject this
thinking for the evil person is a victim of nature and it would be cruel to do
that to a being that has no free will.
ON DRINK
The Bible teaches that drunkenness is a sin that terminates your
friendship with God. It is not a sin
because it leads to violence or may start off alcoholism for it does not have
to. Precautions can be taken. It is a sin just because it takes away
freedom and makes you less of a person or perhaps because you enjoy it. It makes you into a puppet of a drug not a
real person if one has too much. One
does not need to drink a lot for that to happen so being tipsy must be a sin as
much as full drunkenness. It would be
worse for the person who is totally out of it on drink does not know what they
are doing and that they should not be drinking any more unlike the tipsy
person.
If you believe that human life and human existence matter more than
pleasure then drinking must be always wrong except for medicinal reasons for it
is trying to artificially change your personality. It reflects that you are not entirely happy
with yourself. If you are not happy with yourself then you should change by
effort and doing good works.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that drunkenness is a mortal sin that
results in everlasting torment. If the
person who commits this sin dies without repenting it that person will be
thrust down into the flames of Hell to suffer forever and ever. The person who causes another to commit this
sin is willing a mortal sin to happen which is, in justice, a mortal sin. It is a sin for anyone to buy a drunk person
a drink or for the bartender to serve them drink for that is helping a person
to commit a serious sin.
Jesus however miraculously provided good wine for guests at a wedding in
Proverbs says that God made wine to gladden the heart of man. This certainly permits being slightly
drunk. Would you say that God made grape
juice to gladden the heart of man? No
but some tee-total Christians say that the verse is not referring to fermented
wine but to unfermented.
Bible or not withstanding, drinking must be a sin if there is a God. Are you putting God first as Christ demanded
if you change your feelings and personality with a drink and not by prayer? Prayer would be your delight and your pick me
up if you really cherished God enough.
Should Christians stand against the door of the pub like human walls to
keep the customers out? They could let
them in if they could trust them not to drink heavily or much or at all.
Would it be a sin to fail to stand again the door? No. It would be a sin to stand at the door only
when it would lead to violence and there is no need to be provocative. Otherwise, if the human walls are hit it is
not their fault. Some might say the drinkers
have already decided to sin mortally by wanting to enter the pub so letting
them in makes no difference. But to let
them in would be encouraging them to prolong and worse, promote, the sinning
attitudes. And bad example has to be
stopped. Even Christians who are not
drinkers or publicans are as bad as they are unless they prevent people from
going to the pub. They could force the
state to shut them down or at least try and keep trying.
To buy any drink in a pub even a lemonade is to support a business that
spreads wickedness and suffering. It is
assisting in the promotion of mortal sin.
It is a sin to buy anything from a company that supplies or brews
alcoholic drink. Yet Churches use venues
with bars to run Church functions and so on.
The Catholic Church teaches that those who are guilty of mortal sin
cannot partake of the Holy Communion. It
is the mortal sin of sacrilege to take it.
Yet all who are the cause of the sin of drunkenness are welcome to
it. The New Testament speaks badly of
publicans and yet the Church accepts them as good standing members and
communicants. The Catholic Church is too
much interested in getting fans so that it neglects the honour due to the bread
and wine that it calls the body and blood of Christ. God rejects worship like that.
The Church won’t even tell drunks and publicans not to come. If the Church would not let a man take the
Eucharist to defile it physically then it should not let anyone take it to
commit the spiritual version of sacrilege against it. Physical defilement of the Eucharist is not
as bad as spiritually defiling it. To
receive Jesus’ body into a heart that is full of sin and selfishness mocks and
defiles it. The Eucharist in Catholicism
is the body of Christ in the form of bread and wine. But to burn or defile communion cannot touch
Christ, it only affects the appearances of bread and wine. But spiritual defilement attacks the body of
Christ directly. It really gets to him
which physical defilement cannot do.
Such is the hypocrisy of the Church that physical defilement is
considered to be the most serious and only the Pope can forgive this sin.
It is the same with other religions which praise the prayers and good
works of the sinners or let them come to the communion table. A person who refuses to repent a sin cannot
sincerely want to please God.
Accordingly their good works cannot be praised. To praise them is to encourage them to stray
from God and prefer shoddy goodness to the pure goodness of serving God for his
own sake in pureness of heart. You do
not please your family when you let a big stain stay on the tablecloth.
The Catholic Church and any other religion that treats publicans as
members in good standing is a religion to be avoided.
Drink is fine in moderation. The
law should be sterner against excessive drinking so the damage that drink does
is not a justification for refusing to support pubs and breweries. Don’t condemn anything because it is
misused. If most of us stop buying vodka
that won’t stop its production. We
should try to stop the abuse but it is stupid to think the only way to do that
is by banning drink altogether. The
Bible does seem to ban drinking for entertainment. Paul condemned drunkenness but did not say
how drunk you had to be to sin so going by the rule to interpret things the
safe way we see that he must have thought that tipsiness was wrong as well
(Ephesians 5:18). Proverbs tells us all
not to look at wine at all (
Some would say that our rationality is the most important thing we have
so to change the way our minds work by using drugs or taking strong drink is
therefore degrading. We should be
training ourselves to be happy without their assistance which is a better
idea. But there is no harm in giving up
rationality within reason. We like to
daydream and lose rationality. Some argue
that we cannot ban knives for some people kill with them for knives are needed
but drink is not needed and so should be banned. It is like religion, something that there is
no need for and accordingly is something extra to be abused and to cause hurt
over only religion is worse for it is far less necessary than drink. But we can allow drink and still take legal
steps to scare anybody off taking too much.
It is only people who get violent with drink or who drive that we should
be worried about.
JOBS
If you take a job in a pharmacists and have to sell condoms and you are a
believing Catholic believing that condoms are intrinsically sinful and never
justified what do you do?
Some reply that you should sell them but tell the boss that you can’t do
it any more and either he removes them or makes some arrangement that you won’t
be the one selling them. But he is not
going to remove them and to want somebody else to sell them for you is making
them do the evil for you.
Some reply that you should sell them for the buyer may have no problem
with using condoms and it is her or his business. You are there not as a boss but as a worker
so it’s not your fault. It would be your
fault if you were the boss. Your job is
not to judge sin but to attend the customers.
But if somebody asks you to give them something that is intrinsically
evil it is your business that you are being asked to help them do wrong. Would you sell a shotgun to a child and then
say it was none of your business? The
Church believes that guns are not intrinsically evil but condoms and
contraception are. So how much worse is
it to help people requesting contraception or condoms.
And if you are in a job in which you will have to assist people to do
evil by giving them condoms then you shouldn’t be in the job. Christ said no man can serve two masters so
if you give people what you see to be evil and anti-God for the sake of having
a job and pleasing your boss you are hating God. You are not loving God above jobs and bosses
and spouses and everything. And he wants
to be loved above all. He said that you
have to do his will even if it means your father and mother and children will
hate you.
The Church denies that you can evade responsibility for your actions by
saying a boss or somebody told you to do it.
Many of the Nazis used such an excuse.
What about the contraceptive pill which the Catholic Church regards as
causing an early abortion? Clearly no
practising Catholic can join the staff of a pharmacy any more than a Catholic
can join an abortion clinic.
We see pharmacists being welcomed to the altar for communion so the
Catholic Church is a totally sneaky religion with no real standards.
We could go on forever about jobs and Christianity. Selling newspapers that promote contraception
and astrology and slander must be a sin for Catholics. Working in a dishonest business that requires
you to say nothing, to thereby help it con people, must be a sin. Everything then must be a sin. Every penny put into the pocket of a man who
does not love God must be money paid to Satan.
THE HYPOCRISY ABOUT NEWSPAPERS
It is generally agreed that people have a right to have their past
misdeeds forgotten so that they can have a good reputation unless there is
evidence that they will do wrong in the future and somebody needs to be warned
about them.
The Church and Islam say that telling lies to blacken the name of others
is the grave sin of calumny. To reveal
their unknown faults to a person who has no right to know them is
detraction.
Newspapers often contain lies and twisted facts.
Newspapers report to satisfy peoples’ craving to have reasons to look
down upon others.
Newspapers gratify those who want to see others suffer for doing wrong as
a distraction for people who know what they themselves were up to.
Newspapers have no mercy for anybody who committed a once-off crime and
cruelly exposes them.
The clergy buy them.
The Church sells stories to them which helps them sell.
Journalists and editors are welcomed to communion.
The Church makes money from the murders of Jesus Christ and the saints
and the secular world capitalises on the death of Princess Diana to sell books,
pictures and photographs. They must
really loathe these people when they are mercenary towards them. And, of course, the public help them to
be.
Yet the holy people approve of and buy and let people buy
newspapers. They approve of the news and
let people listen to it and do so themselves.
All this though the papers and the news reveal things about people that
should not be revealed to the public.
Despite its insincere denunciation of gossip, the Bible says things
about people like Tamar being a whore and David’s illicit steamy romps with
Bathsheba and Judas thieving that we have no need to know. This book has a lot to answer for.
Jesus himself was dodgy when he did not tell his apostles to keep scandal
out of their preaching.
The papers and television make money out of other people’s misfortune
which is especially callous. This shows
how many hypocrites there are out there.
The Bible says that astrologers should be put to death. Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin
cut it off meaning that you should do whatever is possible to stop sin for its
so despicable and should be hated totally.
The Bible says that God comes first and Jesus said the same thing. He said you have to love God with all your
heart and that nobody was good but God meaning that the less you adore God the
less you adore good. All newspapers
contain horoscopes and phone numbers for astrologers. The Church should forbid buying such papers
if it really believes its Bible for it is supporting serious heresy to do
that.
THE DOLE AND RESTITUTION
When religion collects money and presents guesses as facts and often
substantiated facts and unjustly censures doubt it can only be large-scale
theft. It ought to be compensating
people not stealing from them. Their
swindling is cynical and cold. They have
stolen from their parents and from their friends. These are the men who are revolted by sons
stealing from their mothers. While some
of the clergy may not steal from the collection plate they are certainly
stealing by handing the plates out.
The lies of the Church prove that she thieves. She is trying to steal truth from people to
bury it.
One serious form of theft in today’s society is people claiming to
unemployment benefit or assistance when they are really earning a wage. But only a few admit that it is their duty to
report these criminals to halt this stealing from the taxpayer. They claim to be honest themselves while
standing aside to let the thieves get on with it – which is helping them to
steal. They say it is bad to let people
steal while they are doing it themselves.
And these who don’t report are in good standing with the Church. Their priest or minister will not tell them
that they cannot take Holy Communion.
The clergy don’t want to complain because they don’t want to do the
reporting themselves. They don’t want to
do it because they want to be popular.
Then they tell you that being popular is a bad sign. Jesus said that it is no blessing when all
speak well of you but a bad sign.
When you steal you have to make restitution as far as you can. If you don’t the sin will not be pardoned
because you are not sorry. Sorry means
undoing the damage you have done.
But what if you help somebody to steal?
When burglar breaks into a house to let his partner in crime in, both have
stolen, even when it is the latter who lifts the stuff. It is the same as this: if I tell a killer where his intended victim
is then I have killed that victim with my tongue. I have used it as a weapon.
Both thieves owe the value of the goods to the owner. One should pay one half and the other the
other half.
But what if one of them will not cough up? The accessory to the crime who is willing to
make amends must pay the lot. This makes
the other criminal a debtor to that person.
It is not fair that the owner should have to be treated unjustly. The criminal owes half of the cost of the
goods to the other.
When you know of a person who is unjustly drawing unemployment money you
have to report that person and fully pay what was stolen yourself if he or she
won’t do it. The state will never get
what is owed from her or him because it is hard to prove how much was fiddled
so one answer is to report as soon as it starts. If you can’t report a person because they
don’t fiddle anymore then you are bound to pay what they owe if they won’t or
can’t. You helped cause the crime so you
have to pay. Otherwise innocents lose
out. You deserve to lose out. Even if the whole community is to blame as
well as you, you try to get them to pitch in and if they don’t you pay
yourself.
If you know that anybody has stolen and do not tell on them then you are
helping her or him to hold on to stolen goods.
You have to make that person your debtor.
You never hear this stuff from the Church wants to be popular even if it
means sacrificing principles. The Church
says that serious theft must be stopped for it leads the thief into eternal
damnation and the most dangerous thing is it is a sin hard to repent from
because of the compensation element. The
neglect exercised by the Church is very wrong.
If we hurt a person inadvertently we owe them compensation. We all have caused the deaths and sufferings
of the starving. We don’t fight for
their rights or send them enough money.
We make no compensation so we are stealing. To have money at all in this evil world is to
steal. There are so many people we hurt.
If Jesus thought it was right to die for sinners to save them then we
should pay the debt to the state that a man who is defrauding it would owe the
state. We should tell him that he owes
them nothing anymore and owes it to us.
If he repents we can forget the debt altogether.
The faith that says you collaborate with a murderer if you step aside to
let him kill your child says that if you let a man steal from the state it’s
different! The damn hypocrisy!
LYING AND THEFT
Police and detectives and politicians and soldiers and lawyers cannot do their jobs without telling lies. Yet all five are welcome at the Church's communion as if they are good Christians. The hypocrisy of a religion that condemns lies is astounding. You commit murder. You get a good lawyer. The lawyers job is not to show you are innocent but to win. The lawyer wants to get you off even if you are guilty and this is just because he is paid to do so. The Church would carry on regarding them highly say even if one in five people were lawyers. When people choose to believe a faith that says at least great liars go to Hell forever that says a lot about them when they espouse such hypocrisy and commend it. If they are not vindictive they are verging on it.
What if people come to your door asking for your brother who is upstairs
and you know they will kill him if they find him? Tell what is not true. This is not lying for you have no
alternative. You are no more a liar than
a calculator that is set to give the wrong result is. You are not telling the truth that is for
sure but you are not doing it of your own will so you are not a liar. Would you be a liar if you were hypnotised
not to tell the truth? The Catholic
Church and the Christians believe that you must always tell the truth and never
tell untruths. This teaching is just
fanaticism and proves how the Church puts dogma before people.
If you say that your brother is not here meaning that he is not standing
at the door with you, is this attempt to make them delude themselves with the
truth you have spoken permissible? Such
a practice will not work very long for people will wise up to it. It is the Catholic Church’s solution to what
we should do, typical advice from that ivory tower system! And it is not hard to ask in such a way that
the person cannot avoid having to decide between a truth and a full lie. For example, the would be murderers might
phrase it as follows: “Is your brother in the house?” Chances are they will. To take the Church’s advice will only get you
in trouble with the men for in such cases a bold lie is the only
salvation. The time would rapidly come
when the person who is thought to know where an intended victim will be
tortured to extract the information from them in case they are just avoiding
telling the truth but not actually lying.
Using the truth in a deceptive manner becomes useless when too widely
approved and practiced. That happens
with lying too. Lying wouldn’t be as bad
for at least you will have to pay for it and you will learn your lesson. Also, lies oppose the truth and because of
their contrast they can be identified. But
using the truth to destroy truth is attempting to permanently prevent discovery
and take the reverence due to truth away from it forever. The person who makes a good forgery is worse
than the person who makes a bad one.
To say he is not here meaning he is not standing at the door with you is
using the truth in a deceptive manner.
The intention is to cause a deception to make the men think you mean he
is not in the house. If lying is totally
and absolutely wrong as the Church says so is this.
What about secret lies that cannot be found out? Since you must put yourself first you must be
good and honest about yourself. Otherwise you will make people love your false
image instead of you. To lie is to
oppose the truth and is condemning what is real. You are real so you are degrading yourself
the more you lie about yourself.
What about white lies? What do you
say to a person who asks you if they look good while they really look
awful? Tell them the truth gently and
you will be trusted. Better to be
trusted than to avoid hurting people for little things.
It is said that silence can be form of lying. The Church would reply, “A wife tells you
that her husband is faithful. You know
he is not and do not tell her. Then it
is supposed she will think that she is right for she thinks you agree with
her. But the wife is just assuming
that. You are not deceiving her by your
silence for she is deceiving herself and she knows your silence is not
proof.” But you know she is deceiving
herself and if you can’t lie she can’t be allowed to deceive herself. If lying is wrong because of the deceit, then
so is doing anything or not doing anything that results in any deception even a
person deceiving themselves.
You should not lie to get yourself out of trouble when you have made your
bed. When you do wrong take what is
coming to you for you asked for it and do not lie to save yourself.
Some say that we should not tell small lies for then you are telling
people that you cannot maintain loyalty to truth in small things and so cannot
be trusted when it comes to things of some importance.
Should you risk losing your job to speak up for the reputation of an
obnoxious worker who was falsely accused of stealing? Yes – if you can give evidence for what you
say. Once you begin to take advantage of
the misfortunes of others you are permitting yourself to do that all the time. You must be brave and courage will get your
life back on track if the worst happens.
Take the unfortunate situation as an opportunity to exercise and develop
courage. We should avoid of the
opportunity to do that. Hardship becomes
easier as you get more accustomed to it.
If A is underpaid by a selfish and avaricious employer he should not get
his money by secretly taking from the employer even though that certainly would
not be stealing. Even if he it is the
only way to get what he is owed he should not do it for the sake of trust. He would be attempting to pull the wool over
the boss’s eyes.
Advertising is a form of legalised theft.
Things are made to sound like they are better than what the competition
has to offer. For example, anti-aging
creams are a clear example of modern fraudulence. Sunscreens are promoted as protecting against
the aging part of the suns rays while zinc oxide is the only product that can
be trusted to do it properly. Tests are
performed all the time and just as often shot down by another panel of
testers. You buy washing powder in big
boxes and when you open the boxes they are two thirds full. All this is to deceive the eye and the memory
and to lie to people to get rid of products.
And the practitioners of such fraud are all looked up to by the
Church.
Lying and stealing stand and fall together. If one is wrong so is the other for lying is
stealing the truth from another person and giving them a fake.
ABUSE OF THE TONGUE
We all have faults and nasty secrets, these are mainly things we would
have done but couldn’t but that does not make them any better, so we should not
speak of the faults of others to those who don’t know of them except for a
greater good. It is terrible to speak
ill of a person who is not around to tell you their side. It is saying things about them behind their
back that they might never say about you.
It is easy to imagine that gossip is fine when the victim will never know
about it and when the listeners enjoy it.
But it is taking pleasure in an evil that there is no need for.
And it is useless to insist that gossip is desirable for people would get
up to a great deal more mischief if nobody would talk about them. When they got found out and became the target
of gossip once they could do the wrong thing again. The pain of being the subject of unsavoury
tittle-tattle subsides and will not stop the person from attracting the adverse
attention again. They could invite attention in order to kill off their
inhibitions. When a person has the
reputation of being a thief that person will continue to steal for he has lost
his reputation anyway. The gossip of
others motivates him to steal.
People enjoy the evil talk and they should not for it means relishing
great evil while condemning what the person did which is dreadful
hypocrisy.
If you have to tell something about somebody then do it for the sake of
doing what is best and not for spite. Be
sure you should tell first.
One should not read the scandalous stories in newspapers unless they
expose dangerous thieves and rapists and murderers – we need to be informed
about these kinds of people. We do not
need to read about celebrities committing adultery or neglecting their children. It is none of our business.
Enjoying gossip is incompatible with egoism because people enjoy hearing
these things because they have been bad themselves or they want others
distracted from their own faults so when somebody is so silly and malicious
that they will gossip and degrade themselves then they make a show of
themselves and really only hurt themselves so do not worry about them. The person who uses something terrible that
somebody did is really as bad as that person for taking advantage of the
offence for thrills and carries no right to condemn the foul deed for he
relishes that deed.
The best way to deal with gossip is to prove it wrong to those whose
opinions of you matter and do lots of nice things for others so that the
mistake fades into insignificance. It
will help you deal with and get rid of the shame.
Religion says that all truth comes first.
Humanism says that only the essential truths come first. Religion believes that God is truth and so it
has to be stricter for God’s truth is very long-winded. When truth comes first that much then it
cannot be wrong to gossip if somebody makes the mistake of thinking a vagabond
is really a good person. Why? Because though truth exists and cannot be
changed we don’t all perceive truth the same way and have to be loyal to truth
as we see them.
SHARING IN EVIL
Here are the ways in which we can cause and share in the badness of
others and be as bad as they are.
Advising evil, commanding evil, agreeing to it, provoking evil, using
flattery to get a person to do evil, concealing evil when it encourages it,
actively assisting in the evil of others, by keeping silent instead of trying
to talk people out of evil-doing and by defending their evil action.
Evil religionists and philosophers insist that if you can help, say, a
woman being attacked by a brutal rapist, and just walk on by you are a lost
less guilty than he is if guilty at all.
But by letting him do that you are intending that she suffer abuse from
him. If he wants to kill her it is okay
with you. You would be worse than him
for he may not want to kill her. You are
as good as telling him to do it. The man
who pays somebody to steal for him is as much a thief as the other and you
would be like him.
A morality that forbids killing and allows you to cause killing is sheer
nonsense.
DIFFICULT SITUATIONS
Sometimes courses of action are called for which appear to be barbaric
and repulsive to us.
If you can save your evil father or a brilliant doctor from a burning
house you have to save your father for the people who know come first because
you are most sure of your own existence.
You would not be alive except for your father so to respect yourself you
have to save him. You are number
one! Christians cannot agree for God
said in the book of Deuteronomy that parents can have children put to death for
being hard to live with.
If your mother is in the house and you love her far better or consider
her more valuable to others than your father then you have to save her instead
of him.
For similar reasons, you cannot leave your ailing mother’s bedside to
help others among whom you would do greater good. So, you can be a good person and support your
family instead of starving them to give donations to save starving millions in
the
What if your son is guilty of a crime?
Do you turn him in? Not if you
can make him pay for it and will keep an eye on him in future. While it is wrong to suspect people of
mischief without much evidence it is a duty to suspect your children and
servants for you cannot take risks. It
is up to them to settle your mind.
People are most dangerous when they are not suspected.
SABBATICAL SHAMBLES
The Catholic Church forbids hard work on the Sabbath day. That day is to be reserved for family and for
prayer and rest and unnecessary or hard work are to be avoided (part 2185, Catechism
of the Catholic Church). Funny how
the Church does nothing to stamp out drinking on the Sabbath which surely must
be a sin. God according to Jesus wants
us to love him above all things and with all our strength, that is, give all
our love to God all the time, and to love our neighbour as ourselves. We can only love our neighbour and love God
alone at the same time by loving our neighbour for God’s sake, to please
God. You love them for God not for
them. That is what Jesus meant. God wants the Sabbath day kept for himself so
on that day we must make it more obvious that he comes first by restfully
praying and preferring to do that than help others. Jesus saying that if a sheep falls into a pit
on the Sabbath you will rightly pull him out doesn’t conflict with this for it
is not a command to do good works on the Sabbath but only necessary ones. The Sabbath is not a humanitarian day but a
divine day, a day to put prayer before people.
If people did not
listen to the radio or watch television on that day the stars would not have to
work to entertain them. Yet Catholics
are not told to avoid the television or keep the radio off. The fact that the stars would still work if
they switched off makes no difference.
It is the principle that counts.
They would be making sure that the chances of the Sabbath day being
broken are kept to a minimum.
The Church does not tell you to have meals prepared and the fire set from
the day before for the Sabbath.
What about hospitals? The Sabbath
is the day for prayer to God who comes first so people have to neglect the
patients for he only asks that they be cared for for
his own benefit anyway. Suffering does
us no good for we can be happy in Heaven even if we never suffer so he only
sends it to make us virtuous though he has no need for the virtue and it could
hardly be a virtue to let a God like that mould and shape you. God did not say that the Sabbath was to be
dedicated to the sick or poor but to rest.
And he said it right in the middle of the Ten Commandments. Some good works in a strict case of emergency
were allowed according to Jesus. If
other good works were allowed on the Sabbath then we would have to look after
the unfortunate that day and give alms to the poor.
The Church earns
its wages on the Sabbath day. And then
it forbids work on the Sabbath. The Old
Testament never said that the Sabbath was to be observed by public worship or
by giving money to ministers. The New
Testament never sanctioned this either.
Collections were taken up on the first day of the week for the Jewish Sabbath
was on the seventh day. If they did
worship on the first day that does not make the first day the Sabbath. The Catholic practice of the Sunday Sabbath
is a heresy. The Church forbids earning
on the Sabbath and then she makes her own money that same day!
It is a scandal that the Catechism of the Catholic Church requires
that Catholics work to make sure that the state legally gives them the day off
on Church holydays (2188).
The Church dispenses those who are sick from the obligation to attend Mass on a Sunday. It depends on how sick they are. You can't miss Mass because of an acne spot. It has to be a sufficient reason. It must not be an excuse. If you miss Mass for a bad reason it is a mortal sin and one will go to Hell to burn forever unless one gets forgiven first. The Church only made the exceptions to avoid seeming cruel. It doesn't really believe in its exceptions law for it permits very sick pilgrims to attend Masses at shrines. It does not believe that discomfort is a reason for not attending or the risk of infecting others with sickness. It praises those who go to the Masses despite being half-dead. It seems then that if you can't go to Mass when people worse than you do, it is a mortal sin whatever the Church says. Take a sick bucket and go. People who make it to Mass when there is black frost on the roads and when they risk their own lives and those of their children and elderly folk to attend are praised. They should be told off for risking their lives over beliefs that carry no corroboration from reason or evidence whatsoever. They degrade themselves by being that keen to obey the directives of men.
THE TREATMENT OF CRIMINALS
Criminals break the law of society and have to pay the debt for it. Only they can pay it so fines paid by friends
can no longer do unless the criminal will have to pay them back.
Hurting criminals merely to reform them is idiocy for all they have to do
is change and you can’t make them do that.
It is sheer sadism. Anybody could
say they have changed for the better and why should we believe somebody that
has broken the law? The more harm they
have done the less we should trust them.
Retributionism teaches that suffering is the wages of
crime. We do not believe in retribution
for you don’t have free will and so don’t deserve to pay a penalty for your
crimes. Retribution says that if a crime
is not punished then it is rewarded.
This forbids mercy so retributionism commands
that we all slice bad people up – alive.
We don’t believe that punishment is all about deterring others from crime
for that advocates extreme brutality. We
would have to crucify thieves to scare would-be thieves. Such a practice would really lead to
criminals planning their crimes better to avoid capture.
We don’t believe that punishment is just for protecting society because
we are all potential monsters.
Making criminals pay is not about protecting us but about safeguarding
the law. If there is no price for breaking the law then the law is a law in
name only and is not a law at all. It is
really offering an encouragement for wickedness. The amount of suffering that has been
inflicted has to be inflicted in return.
The killer should be behind bars for life but then we must still keep
our minds open to any new light. When
you take a life you have to pay for it for the rest of your life, all your
days, for you have taken all the rest of the victim’s days from her or him.
When you steal or harm another wrongly you have to make amends or
restitution as far as you are able. A
person who steals and says they are sorry can’t be really sorry if they are
keeping what they took instead of returning it.
You have to make compensation not only for what you too but also for the
sorrow you caused.
What is so special about preserving the law of the land by paying back
criminals for breaking the law? Is it to
keep public order? The Church disagrees
for it upholds the example of the apostles and the early Christians and Jesus
himself who broke the law when it conflicted with their religious beliefs. For example, Jesus claimed to be the Christ,
Christ means anointed one or king, and this was treason against
MAMMON
Christianity has given us the well-known saying: “The love of money is
the root of all evil”.
This teaching leads to hypocrisy.
If religion really believes it then why does it not tell people to live
with the bare essentials and do that itself?
If money causes sin then it is a sin to have it. Having the bare essentials alone can be
excused on the grounds that you can’t live without some material things.
A rich man once asked Jesus what he had to do to enter Heaven. Jesus asked him if he kept the commandments
and he said he did. Jesus told him he
lacked only one thing and that was not selling all he had and giving it to the
poor. The Vatican has a tough time with
telling lies to make Jesus’ words of no effect for it is passionately in love
with money and courts those who are rich and who love their wealth to make
converts of them and keep them Catholic.
The Church says it is only your duty to obey Jesus’ command to get rid
of wealth if you are over-attached to it – that is if you would rather sin
against God or do harm than part with it.
But you cannot get rich without being egotistic and miserly to some
degree. Miserliness the sin of holding
on to money that the poor need better and since God is generous to us we have
to be generous to him and do his will for he wants the poor helped. The pat-answer clearly shows how deep the
concern of the Church for the poor really is.
Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the
Most of the saints of
In Luke 12, Jesus tells the disciples, a group including the apostles, to
sell what they have for the poor. Then
he told them a parable on the need to be ready for the coming of the
master. Peter asked him if this parable
was for them and not for everybody. This
was because the preparation Jesus asked for was giving away all property for
otherwise the query would have been inexplicable. This is because Peter would have known that
everybody would be expected to be ready for Jesus if Jesus simply meant: “Be good
to prepare for the coming of the master”.
Some say that Jesus never answered the question and this silence alone
implies that Peter was asking a stupid question. But Jesus’ answer was only that anybody who
does not prepare is not much of a servant.
In other words, anybody who does not get ready is bad which can only be
referring to the everybody in Peter’s question.
The gospel says it is a reply.
When the Church says that pre-marital sex performed with more love than happens in marriage is still wrong then why can’t it teach that wealth is wrong in itself just like the sex? It’s not morality the Church has but prejudice.
JESUS’ BATTLE
Some people go on about how great their clergy are ad nausem. This is
extraordinary for the Jewish clergy were esteemed like that otherwise they
wouldn’t have been clergy and yet time and time again in the gospels, Jesus
scathingly denounces the ministers and priests of the Jews as rotten frauds. He admitted they did a wonderful job in
seeming holy and pious and caring and were good religious teachers. But he stated that it was all transparent to
him. Evidently, it wasn’t obvious to the
people. If Jesus were God’s Son then his
rantings should remind us that we ought to be wary of
religious leaders. Jesus didn’t prove
what he said. He just said it. He didn’t say, “Look at Rabbi Samuel going
about praying and preaching and he has Anna from
He gave out about their wearing special clothes in order to get praise
and special treatment. Catholic priests
do that. Their excuse is that it is so
that they will be easily identified if anybody needs a priest. But since the Church is able to break up the
sacrament of order into diaconate, priesthood and episcopate it should have
given all Catholics the power to anoint the sick to take away their sins and
send them to Heaven if they die. Deacons
used to have that power centuries ago.
So their excuse is invalid. The
bishops could defy the
He gave out about the fasting of the Jewish clergy. They did not hide it. They let their facial expressions show that
they were abstaining from food. They did
not have to fast at all. They could have
gone about down in the mouth as if they were fasting though they were not. Clearly Jesus was just being mean. Jesus
would not have been impressed then with priests showing their celibacy. He knew that some who were not fasting could
look like they were. And he suggested
that if you fast, wash your face and act as if you are not fasting God will be
pleased. Washing your face will be of no
avail! Why would these men fast when
they could fake it and pretend they were fasting. Jesus didn’t accuse them of faking but of
fasting just for show. It is hard to see
anything other than extreme hatred and antagonism towards the idea of clergy in
this. Just because they were clergy he
thought they were fakes!
He criticised the long prayers of the Jewish clergy feeling that they
were done just for show.
He despised many of their rules because they were burdensome and only
created in order for an excuse for looking down on those who failed to keep
them.
In Matthew 23, Jesus called them vipers – complementing their
craftiness. He called them
bastards. He told them that they were
too devoted to evil to escape the sentence of Hell. He told them that they would go to tremendous
lengths to get a single convert just to turn him into a hypocritical
devil. Such persistence would seem to
indicate that they are genuine and sincere but Jesus strongly holds that the Devil
can masquerade as an angel of light. The
message is clear: don’t regard the clergy as good men or having any rights over
you just because they make a lot of sacrifices for their religion.
Christians might try to deceive you into thinking that Jesus was only
speaking of the bad members of the Jewish clergy. He meant all the Jewish religious
leaders. He never mentioned that he was
not having a go at a secret disciple of his, who was a Jewish minister. In fact the Bible never says that this
disciple was good. Don’t try to quote
this disciple as evidence against the facts and that it was not a blanket
condemnation.
The Jewish leader who told Jesus that he believed that mercy was better
than any sacrifice or holocaust is not evidence against the position that
Jesus’ condemnation was of all of them.
Jesus told him he was not far from the
Jesus said you cannot serve both God and money. No matter how much you value money, it is how
it makes others you care about see you that matters to you not the money. For example, you can’t enjoy a spectacular
world cruise if nobody treats you nice on it.
To serve God the last thing you need is human approval. This implies that you cannot serve God and
clergy even when the clergy claim to speak for him and represent him. Jesus did ask people to do what the Jewish
clergy said when it agreed with God’s word but not to treat them as mouthpieces
of God or to copy them. He said that
nobody must be called teacher in his Church for there is only one teacher the
Christ.
Evil is not to a person’s advantage according to the Bible. Sin brings with it the threat of divine
retribution. Evil is making a sacrifice,
but the wrong kind of sacrifice. If
people sacrifice marriage and family for religion they could do it out of evil
and for evil.
Paul had plenty of popular rivals in the Christian Church. “Such men are false apostles [spurious,
counterfeits], deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles (special messengers)
of Christ (the Messiah). And it is no
wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians
God cannot be pleased with the worship of those who don’t make much of an
effort to know him. You cannot sincerely
worship what you don’t know. Most
Christians aren’t interested all the same.
God will reveal a simple religion.
Religion has to be Catholic, that is universal. Such religion is meant to attract all people
and be suitable for all even the simplest for the world is full of deceivers. But the Catholic faith and most Christian
faiths are complicated which shows that they are neither Catholic or from God.
CONCLUSION
Religion, especially traditional Christianity, is full of hypocrisy. We have only touched on some of many examples
here.
BOOKS CONSULTED
CATECHISM OF THE
CORRECTION AND DISCIPLINE OF CHILDREN, John R Rice,
EUTHANASIA, MERCY KILLING OR MURDER?
Dom Peter Flood, Faith Pamphlets,
GOSSIP GOSSIP GOSSIP
Jean E Laird,
HUMAN RIGHTS, Michael Bertram Crowe Veritas
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer,
WHAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER Richard H Brenan SJ, Irish Messenger Publications,
The Dark Side, How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth, Valerie Tarico, Ph.D, Dea Press, Seattle, 2006
Why I Became an Atheist, John Loftus, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008
18 January 2008