Index
The claim made by Christians that Jesus loves you is a pack of lies. Jesus hates you!
Jesus regarded all people as being totally depraved. Obviously then it
would be too much to expect him to like anybody! The adage to love the sinner
and hate the sin at the same time fails to provide an escape route. Sin reflects the kind of person I am so sin
cannot be separated from me. I sin because I am bad not just because my sin is
bad. My sin is me in a real sense and to
hate my sin is to hate me. To say John’s
homework is terrible is to call John terrible indirectly. And its being indirect doesn’t make it any
less real.
A man came up to Jesus calling
him good teacher. Jesus said that nobody
was good only God: “Why do you call me good for nobody is good but God?” (Mark
10:17,18).
Christians say that the man thought Jesus was a good man and Jesus was
telling him that he could only be good if he was God. If right their interpretation would mean that
all are sinners and cannot stay out of it.
And the same interpretation holds true if Jesus was just telling him
that his idea of good was wrong and that only God knows what good is and lives
that goodness.
The man called Jesus a good
teacher. Yet Jesus rejected this. It was not flattery for Jesus was famous as a
teacher. The man meant it. Jesus just
didn’t like being called good by anybody human for he
thought that humans have an unclear idea of what good is and don’t understand
real goodness as represented by almighty God.
He thought humans were too sinful to have a clue about what it meant to
worship God as good.
There are other interpretations
but they don’t fit the Christian faith.
For example, we could hold that Jesus rejected the compliment for he was
a sinner like everybody else. Some say
Jesus only meant that the man was flattering him and didn’t mean it which was
why he rejected the compliment. But
there is no hint of that in the text.
You don’t say, “Why do you call me good for nobody is good but God?” to
somebody that is flattering you. You
say, “You flatter me.” And besides the man asked him about how to inherit everlasting life
and Jesus answered him thus acknowledging him as sincere not as a flatterer.
Anybody who says sinners go to suffer forever at death wants that belief to be true for they could believe something nicer. Jesus advocated belief in such torment and said he accepted it as true. What does that say about him? If you could condone a God letting that happen to somebody you could condone anything. When you condone the workings of your invisible God you should condone the workings of your visible neighbourhood tyrant too. Fairs fair. What you see comes first.
Jesus didn't say we are to respect our neighbour as ourselves but to love our neighbour as ourselves meaning we must adore our neighbour as much as ourselves. Respect our neighbour as ourselves means we can treat a person properly despite having bad feelings for them. The Christians say that Jesus in commanding such love of neighbour did not mean that we must be crazy about everybody but only that we must treat them as we wish to be treated. They lie for he said love not respect. By asking us to do the impossible and by threatening curses and Hell and eternal torment on those who naturally fail, Jesus was putting us on an eternal treadmill from which there would be no reprieve. We would be unable to think we can do anything right or to please him. And once we start thinking that about ourselves our relationships will rapidly break down. Jesus tries to force us to be good in an impossible way. His example will drive us to force our gospels and versions of them on others. And if we can't do it, that will not stop us wanting to do it.
Christianity is not just about
Jesus’ cross but about us taking up our cross daily to follow him. It is not enough to take up the cross. It has to be taken up in an attitude of,
“This is the will of Jesus and God and I accept this cross because this is
so.” That is fanaticism because the
cross should be accepted for your own sake not theirs. Yet Jesus made it clear that the cross is to
be carried for him and God. But what if
Jesus was a fraud and there is no God?
Jesus told the apostles that he was giving them a new commandment to
love one another just as he has loved them (John 13:34). Since God had commanded all to love one
another as themselves and to love him above all things Jesus cannot mean
anything like normal love. He must mean
that as he loves his disciples enough to die for them so they must do the
same. But there is only one way to prove
you manage to keep this commandment and that is by courting martyrdom so Jesus
is commanding bloodshed.
In Mark 8 he said that anybody who calls himself his disciple must take
up his cross and follow him for whoever loves his life will lose it and whoever
hates his life will keep it. If losing your life was final Jesus would not have asked you to
suffer so much so it must be dead serious. Whoever prefers earth to God and Heaven will
lose his life on earth and in Heaven. He
means that whoever hates their life on earth and chooses life with God will
find life with God forever. He is not saying
that you must reject temporal life totally but he means that you must live your
life on earth for God and nothing else.
Though you live on earth you want God and that is what you live
for. Cross denotes a slow and agonising
execution.
This rule was just pure cruelty for he did not command his disciples to
fast all the time like John’s did. In
effect, he told them to love their lives.
Jesus was saying that if we don’t get ourselves into big trouble and even
get killed for him and set the stage for these things to happen we will not
enter heavenly happiness. The cross is
carried to the place of death and execution and disgrace. Jesus said that he would carry his cross to
his death and we should do the same if we are his. The apostles were not all crucified so is
cross just a symbol for persecution unto death?
Jesus is not saying that they will be crucified but that if they are
lucky enough to be martyred they should be.
They are to carry the cross in hope of it.
The apostles worked in places of danger when they would have been safer
elsewhere proving that Jesus wants people to become martyrs.
Crosses mean crosses and not burdens.
If he had just meant that we must carry our everyday crosses the way many
interpret it, he would have used the word burdens instead of cross.
We may answer that he did not mean that.
He told us to love a life with God on earth which means that the cross
is a symbol for burden. But that life is
meant to be used to sacrifice yourself daily until you make the ultimate
sacrifice, death. He is saying that if
you don’t bring martyrdom on your head you are not loving
your life with God on earth because you are not loving God.
Another objection is that the New Testament in Luke says that we must
bear our cross every day so that the cross must mean the little and large
upsets of everyday life and not something that takes you to your death. But Jesus carried his cross for several
minutes to
A happy person is not a true Christian for Christians are supposed to
make enemies like Jesus did. He said
that a curse was on anybody who was well liked.
Matthew 10:31 makes Jesus tell the apostles to flee from one town where
they are persecuted to a safer one. This
does not contradict Mark 8 where he asks us to carry our cross after him. Jesus told us to live to carry the cross and
then die for him which means that we must only die when there is no
escape. He did not drag the apostles
with him to
Jesus allegedly died for his faith.
If so, he knew that his terrible death was coming and did nothing to
avoid it – which the gospels say - but embraced it with the passion of a lover. So, he expects us to do the same. His death resembles the death of one who dies
to increase the power of evil in the world.
His death is more likely to be meant as a bad example for us that he
hopes will destroy us than to be meant to save us from sin. The doctrine that Jesus saved us by his death
is full of holes and nobody could honestly believe it. We don’t even have any evidence that Jesus
ever was crucified.
Even Jesus’ doctrine that he
came to reveal God to us is a weapon of destruction for people for it leads to
death.
The doctrine that God has spoken
to us infers that if we lie for a serious reason and that is right then we
cannot trust God who revealed the faith to us for he has such mysterious ways
that he could tell us a lie for some purpose we cannot understand. So approval of lies or the toleration of
error infer that taking revelation seriously is
evil. Jesus certainly did expect us to
take revealed religion so seriously that we had to invest it with ultimate
importance. So, if lies are right we are
to die for what may be lies. If lies are
always wrong then we are to die rather than to lie or to encourage
deception. If I believe that Jesus is
the son of God and I am asked to deny him or to foster some deception about him
or his ways then I have to get killed or I have to kill myself if there is no
other way to avoid the denial or deception.
Nobody can deny that faith in Christ is faith in a murderer.
An evil man necessarily wants to make some people unhappy and Jesus was
no exception. But let us move away from
this general observation and get down to specifics.
Jesus said that the most important commandment was the one to love God
with all our power. The next, love of
neighbour as oneself, was the next most important and was said to be like it
for loving your neighbour to please God is really just loving God with all your
power or loving God alone. In
Christianity, people don’t matter in themselves. This is a callous religion.
Christianity teaches that love is not feeling affection but is sacrifice
for if you won’t sacrifice you prefer your pleasure to the person. Jesus taught that too. If love is not feeling but sacrifice then
love is action. The more you hate the
person you help the better for hate makes sure that you are devoted to their
good when you do good for them for its own sake and not because of your
feelings.
Jesus liked strong drink and his food.
He frequented parties and fancy dinners.
He told the apostles that he wanted them to be happy (John 16:24). But love is sacrifice for when you help
others because you want to you are using them for you are doing it because you
want to and not for them. Jesus came out
against using others that way in his Sermon on the Mount. The harder life is then the better. To refuse to love as much as possible is to
refuse to love at all. He commanded that
we love God with all that is in us. Yet
he went against and preached against these very principles when he felt like
it. Popularity was what he sought. If Jesus had been the Son of God he would
have been an ascetic who willed to hate people with all the emotional strength
in him so that he could make the smallest deed of kindness to them a massive
sacrifice of love. Feeling hate and
willing evil are two separate things and the former is only sinful when it is
not done for the sake of sacrifice.
Satan stands for happiness while God stands for the misery of love.
Even if Jesus were God he would have had to torment himself in order to
harm himself for others.
Jesus’ disciples did not fast and John’s did. Jesus explained that he would not let his own
do that for they had him with them meaning that it was a time for rejoicing
(Mark 2). He remarked that you do not
put patches from new things unto old.
And he said that his own disciples should wait until he was out of the
world before fasting. Fasting was done
to discipline the body. Jesus is
forbidding his apostles to do that.
Perhaps he thought that fasting was not about discipline but about pain
for the sake of pain. If it was
party-time, as he said, then after his death should be a bigger party for he is
now with God and better at helping us than ever. When Jesus said that now was the time for
celebrating he had no intention of surviving death or rising from the dead at
that time. He did not even believe in
life after death.
Christians tell us about the terrible things that happen in life being
part of God’s good plan in other words, evil is used
to bring good out of it. Jesus himself
dismissed this reasoning totally when he said that we must expect him back any
moment and be always ready. Obviously,
Jesus thought he could come back soon and was wrong for nobody in their right
mind keeps expecting a helicopter to arrive when it was to come last week and
that is only days and not centuries. But
anyway the point is, if Jesus can come back now it is a sin to say that this
accident or that person getting terminally ill has a purpose for you are
supposed to act as if you are not sure what is going to happen in the next few
minutes and that the world could end and Jesus appear. This would make life hell for anybody who
believes in his God for they will have to act as if God is good and has no
purpose for suffering. Cruelty like this
is rare and free will is no excuse for it for there is no such thing and it
does not need to be programmed to make evil possible.
The Catholic hymn, Hail Redeemer, King Divine! Has
a line calling Jesus the King of Love on
Hatred is wanting to hurt another person
unjustly or inappropriately. It is
pretending that there is little or no value in that person. Religion says hatred is always wrong and
counsels us to love our enemies.
Anger wants to hurt a person for emotional reasons. It is hatred for it is vengeful (Catechism
of the Catholic Church (2302)) even though religion unintelligibly allows
it as long as you do not sin though it forbids hatred (ibid 2303). It is not something going wrong that makes
you angry, it is the way you respond to it that does that for worse things happen
and you do not have an angry reaction.
So, anger is an unnecessary evil.
Anger would not be hatred if you rationally wanted to hurt the person
because you loved them but it is an irrational feeling. It is always listening to the heart and not
the rationality. Some things make people
angry while the other equally bad or worse things do not. Anger and love are incompatible. The person who says. “I am mad at you because I love you”, is a
liar and it is a lie that society and religion readily and eagerly encourage.
Hatred is needlessly wanting to hurt another
person or to see them hurt. Anger wants
to see pain befall another because of a feeling and not because it is right so
anger is hate. Anger and love cannot go together
- though you may be able to switch from one to the other. Some say that anger is wishing evil to man as
far as he deserves it while hatred does not care if he deserves it but wishes
it anyway (page 63, Moral Philosophy).
Yet they will agree with the definition that anger is a desire for
vengeance for the wrongdoing of another (page 62, Moral Philosophy). Those who make this distinction are
hypocrites for they know that all desire for vengeance or retribution is unjust
and fuelled by hatred because there is no proof
concerning how responsible a person is for what they do and indeed no
proof that they are responsible at all.
They might not have free will.
Anger is hatred.
People prefer being liked to being loved for real love is a cold act of
goodness or good will. Anger stops you liking
a person so how could it be love?
The faith of Christ commends anger so it is inciting believers to hatred
against anybody who will not love and believe their disgusting God. It says that God and faith are of supreme
importance. When it allows anger for
lesser things it allows even more anger for bigger things. People might say that anger is a sin for you
have to judge and Jesus said that we had no right to judge. But he said we may judge but only if we are
good ourselves (Matthew 7). He said that
we must see clearly to judge – that is, we must be fair and not be committing
what we condemn the other person for ourselves.
He told the Church to judge (Matthew 18:15-17). So Jesus did permit us and encourage us to be
angry. He certainly had no right to do
this because we all know there are things which are neither
right or wrong. There have to be
when right and wrong depend on the circumstances. When he had no time for the idea of
neutrality but was only interested in black and white self-righteousness he had
no right to call on us to judge. He
warned that his generation would face the judgment of God as would those who
were unlucky enough to live until he would come back. There is real vindictiveness in anybody who
talks like that when they don’t know what they are talking about. But this vindictiveness is the Bible God’s
law.
Jesus said that we must love God with all our hearts and our neighbours
as ourselves. God matters most and
considering how much God hates sin we see how angry he would like us to be.
Jesus presented himself as an example for us. He was angry because some towns did not
believe in him despite the miracles he did in them (Matthew 11:21-24).
He was angry when he told the Jews that they were hypocrites (Matthew 15:7).
Jesus went into a fury in the
In Matthew 23, Jesus’ angry mouth went into overdrive when he called the
Jewish leaders everything under the sun and accused them of heinous
crimes. He told them they were bastards.
The Bible says that God gets angry.
This anger is akin to willing what you will when you are angry instead
of the emotion that occurs. God is a
spirit and cannot have feelings. But if
there are strong feelings involved there may be some excuse for anger.
When you approve of hatred it follows that any good you do in that spirit
is just a sham. You are telling the
person you help that you care about them and you do not.
In blessing anger, the Christian religion encourages rioting and
killing. Nobody knows where anger will
lead and many will go out of control so that they do not know what they are
doing.
Jesus taught that those who die in sin or without having turned to him
for salvation will suffer in Hell forever.
Obviously if you are resurrected to sin forever in a place called Hell
forever and burn in it without being destroyed and if you want to stay there
forever despite the torment then there are several miracles here. God preserves your life after death and
raises your body to suffer forever in a fire and enables you to want to stay
there in that pit when you wouldn’t stay in a semi-hell on earth - these are
the miracles. Miracles demand
extraordinary evidence for they are extraordinary claims. To violate this law in order to believe in
Hell shows that believers are eager to believe it. You wouldn’t convict a killer on weak
evidence and you are asked here to believe in the miracles of Hell for which
there is no evidence so that you can believe that those who hate God will go
there forever. That shows that the
doctrine implicitly commands hatred of sinners and those in Hell. God asks you to believe in Hell so God hates
them too.
The Church will say that though there is no evidence for Hell we have
evidence that the testimony of Christ to its existence is reliable for Christ
did miracles to prove his mission and doctrine.
But bearing in mind that we need very strong evidence the stranger or
more unlikely a claim is this is unacceptable.
If Jesus does ten miracles and you can verify them all but the last then
you can’t believe in the last one. You
must consider him a liar if he asks you to believe in it. If a man commits ten murders and you can only
prove he committed nine of them you are not permitted to believe he committed
the odd one out.
The Church admits that it cannot conclusively prove every miracle
reported of Jesus in the Bible or outside of it when you consider every miracle
by itself. To claim a miracle happened
is such a serious claim that naturally the evidence
has to be very serious as in strong and good and convincing and every
individual miracle requires it. You
can’t say the resurrection of Jesus is provable so the other miracles of Jesus
must have happened as well for Jesus rose to prove his teachings and claims and
miracles to be real. Every miracle is so
serious so it has to be checked out on its own.
Christians know that miracles are very serious for they as good as
suspend or change natural law and you need near if not actual impossible
evidence to believe in them. Imagine
the evidence you would need to justify believing in the tooth fairy – a
miraculous being. A miracle that
doesn’t have extraordinary evidence backing it up isn’t worth talking about.
So if Hell exists and God wants us to believe in it as the Church and
Jesus say then we are to hate the damned.
In the book, The Bible Tells Us So, it is
plainly asserted that the Bible never states that God loves the damned. “Although the Bible tells us that those who
failed to walk in God’s way because they did not know it will be beaten with
fewer stripes than will those who failed to walk in God’s way although they
knew it [Luke 12:47, 48], it nowhere intimates that God loves the damned” (page
62). Small wonder when Hell serves no
good purpose. Hopefully it should be
different with living sinners for they can change unlike the damned but that
would require you to hate them as long as they won’t change and hope they will
change. But God must have done something
to the damned to make them stay in Hell therefore it would be more evil of him
to hate the damned and not living sinners.
Living sinners have to be hated far more than the damned.
Then the book declares, “Paradoxical as it may be, when the unregenerate
blatantly defy the Most High and brazenly give vent to their hatred of him, the
regenerate are constrained by their very love for God to exclaim, “Do I not
hate them, O God, that hate thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count
them mine enemies’ [Ps 139:21, 22]” (page 124).
The curses put by Paul on the wicked though he claimed to be writing
God’s word and blessed worse implies his God is a God of hate. He never cursed anybody as much as those who
disagreed with him. He singled them out
for special abuse.
The imprecations of the saints in Heaven upon the incorrigible unsaved
(Revelation 6:9, 10) support the notion that God hates those who are in
Hell. Their curses were not pronounced
so that the unsaved would suffer and repent through it for the unsaved were in
a totally godless and immoral world. The
spells were woven not because of a desire to help but out of malice.
Remember, if the damned are hated and God approves of this and hates them
himself then there is no reason why he cannot torment them vindictively and
more than they deserve. Nothing
justifies devaluing a person and if it is right to do that then tormenting and abusing
them is acceptable. God cannot complain
if we wish we could abuse them.
The book observes that God told Paul he hated Esau and loved Jacob and
that he did not say he hated Esau’s acts but Esau himself (page 68, The
Bible Tells Us So). This observation
is right for if Paul, who was teaching elementary Christianity to the Romans
when he said that God revealed that to him, had believed that God did not hate
Esau in the literal sense he would have made that clear.
If God hates the damned and won’t help them to repent then this alone would
prove that he hates them enough to keep them in Hell forever and probably does.
Catholics would try to tell you that God hates the works of the damned
but loves or values them as persons. If
that were true then he has a choice between honouring their personhood and
punishing their works. He cannot do both
so he has to do one or the other.
He can make them as happy as possible despite their sins because they are
persons or he can punish them for their sins.
Making sinners happy and thereby rewarding them for sins would be better
than punishing them needlessly. And it
is not really rewarding when the alternative is immoral. In practice it is rewarding but intention
wise and motive wise it is not. There is
no alternative. If you act as if you
forgive a person because you are forced then in your heart you have not
forgiven them. This works the same way.
Perhaps punishing them is treating them as persons. But what use is useless suffering? The suffering is useless for if a person is
happy but evil inside but is in a place where they cannot harm others who cares? We need
punishment on earth for the sake of order but it is pure superstition and
anthropomorphism to have a punishing God unless that God is a tyrant. So the suffering is treating them as
impersonal. The punishing does no good
for the damned will not or cannot repent.
They might as well be happy. It
follows that the punishment of the damned is a needless evil and that its
infliction implies that God hates the damned and treats them as worthless. His attitude to them is that they have no
value. When God hates the damned he must
hate sinners. And so must we.
God may have to punish in this world to restrain sinners but that is only necessary because of the kind of world it is – it is needed to stop people going out of control. He could make another world and populate it with people in force-fields where nobody can harm anybody else. Punishment is certainly an evil. It is not a nice thing even if it is necessary. It does not change the evil inside the person unless the person decides to change so it is really only the person who can change. Punishment may educate and inspire change but these things can be done without it. Though it is good to try and convert through punishment on earth - when we have to punish we may as well try to change the person through it – punishment is adding the evil of suffering to the evil in somebody’s heart. It doubles the evil. Though it is good to will the punishment of the evil in the person on paper it is bad in practice. There is some sense in saying the person should be punished but there is not enough sense in it to justify punishing. To make sense of this perhaps this parable will be of assistance: A woman murdered her lover in cold blood. She deserves death because she killed him. That is pure logic. But it does not mean we should kill her. One way it does but because you cannot destroy a person for a person is valuable even after they take a life you cannot do it. This implies that the welfare of the person is more important than punishing them. The person comes before the punishment. It implies that God has no business punishing anybody once they leave this world for as long as they can’t damage anything but their own morals let them do what they want. We need to be punished on earth to keep us under some restraint when we are bad. This could not be necessary in the afterlife where Christianity says we will be disembodied beings but at the resurrection we will have magical bodies that can pass through walls etc.
If the person is absolutely valuable then it follows that
every moment of that person’s life is as well.
Therefore the person deserves only happiness in this world and in the
next no matter what he or she does. Yes
she or he does deserve to suffer but this deserving is blanked out by the
treatment she or he deserves as a person.
The doctrine of Hell shows a lack of compassion and moral sense and
those who teach it have no monopoly on determining morality. To say people should suffer in Hell because
they deserve it is plainly vindictive – what would you think of a person who
said that a joyrider deserved to get maimed in a car
crash? It might be true in a sense but its vindictive.
If God valued the sinners as persons he would fight their sin because he values them and not cast them into a Hell. Whoever denies this only show their own true colours.
To say that God loves me unconditionally means that God loves me because
I am a person and not because of what I do.
If my personhood were that important then he wouldn’t let me go to Hell
forever but he does. So though my
personhood is important he refuses to acknowledge it and therefore he hates me
for that is the essence of hate.
If God is the only thing that can make us happy as Christianity teaches
then it is clear that losing him is punishment enough. The doctrine of the fire of Hell tells us
that Hell is more than losing God and being lonely. There is pain of a torturing kind there as
well like something exterior to you tormenting you. It could be literal fire and when it can be
literal fire it is. There would be no
need for the word fire to be used by Jesus symbolise agonising loneliness. This additional torment suggests that God
hates the damned because he thinks what they endure in losing him is not bad
enough and puts them in fire to make it worse.
When God does that it shows that the damned are not in
Hell against the will of God as some contend. If they burn themselves then why does he give
them the power to do it?
Hell is a dangerous doctrine and its seeming cruelty needs to be
explained and God has no right asking us to believe until it is explained.
The idea of hate the sin but love the sinner says the sinner should be
treated as if they have not committed the sin which is hardly
loving either. It is evil to
condone evil and is not really caring about the person for it is really
indifference which is worse than hating the sinner. Also, choosing to be indifferent is an act of
hate. Hate is the act and indifference
is the resulting act. Nobody separates
good works from the person which betrays the whole deceit of it all. Jesus permitted judging fairly and Hell
teaches that sin exists so Hell is a doctrine of hatred and anybody who teaches
needs to be firmly told they should not be doing that. Incidentally, if we cannot love the sinner
without loving the sin it follows that if there is a God then he is a tyrant
then for we are all sinners according to him so how could we love anybody? He would have made us for sadistic thrills
for the growth of love was not the reason he made us.
Hell makes loving the sinner but not the sin impossible because it
supports the idea that if the law is cruel and people break the law they
deserve all it gives them. This is the
logic in many Islamic countries. They
think that even if stoning gays to death is wrong it is right when the gays
know what the law is and break the law for they are asking for stoning and so
deserve it. If a sinner wants to be
hated and believes he or she should be what use is the rule about loving
sinners and hating sin?
God must hate the unsaved as he hates the damned for they are like the
living damned.
Suppose the Roman Catholic doctrine of venial sin, sin that doesn’t
deserve hell such as stealing an apple from a shop, is true. Suppose the Roman doctrine that piles and
piles of venial sin cannot add up to a mortal sin though a mortal sin may do
less harm in the world and to people.
Then he sends people to Hell and spares others for doing worse.
It is not God who wants people in Hell. It is the vicious religion
founded by Jesus Christ if he existed and his followers.
It is time Christianity stopped getting praised despite advocating doctrines that can do grave harm when people figure out their dark implications. It is still responsible even if it leaves these people to work it out on their own.
Jesus was vindictive if he lived.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas.
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald
Press,
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise
Keller, SCM Press Ltd,
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stoneyhurst Philosophy
Series, Longmans, Green and Co,
Objections to Christian Belief, DM Mackinnon, HA Williams, AR Vidler and JS Bezzant, Constable,
Putting Away Childish Things, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins,
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd,
Robert Schuller, Satellite Saint or High Flying
Heretic, Cecil Andrews, Take Heed Publications,
The Hard Sayings of Jesus, FF Bruce Hodder
& Stoughton,
The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation,
Bucks, 1993
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton
& Co Ltd,
Why I am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, Touchstone Books, Simon and
The WWW
Kooks and Quacks of the
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
THIS SITE ARGUES
THAT JESUS WAS EVIL AND WAS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm
Saturday, 15
December 2007