L&T3: Christianity

1: Abstract

2: Measure of Liberty

3: Concepts of Christianity Under the Lens of Liberty

4:The Gospels

5: Immaculate Conception/Crucifixion

6: Authorship and Dating of the New Testament

7: End Notes


The following was the third chapter in a book I wrote called Liberty and Tyranny. I am separating the book to make it easier to read on the website. With that said, the reader may not fully grasp all the points made without having read the first chapter explaining Liberty and the ethical measure of Liberty. Fortunately, I wrote something recently that summarizes Liberty in a few paragraphs which I am excerpting to provide the reader the requisite understanding of the measure being applied to Christianity.

I begin with the explanation of Liberty.

I evaluate the general concepts of Christianity.

New Testament scriptures are quoted at length and the general ministry of Jesus according to the gospels is viewed through the true and ideal lens of liberty.

Pauls influence on the thelogy of Christianity is explained.

Authorship of the New Testament and dates of the writing are mentioned.

Historical events that affected the interpretation of Christianity are referenced.

The Measure of Liberty

There is an objective standard in regard to good, and that objective standard is liberty. Liberty is true because all the results that exist, exist because of the actions of the creatures on this planet and the interaction of the host bodies of the sun, the earth, moon, and other material in the solar system. Liberty is ideal because what is it that everyone wants? Everyone wants to do what they want to do.

Liberty is defined as the capacity to do as one pleases. All creatures are free to do as they please until they are imposed upon by another creature.

There are two forms of imposition, direct or personal and indirect or collective.
Direct imposition occurs when an individual or group who does has no respect for boundaries exercise their liberty to an extent where it imposes on the liberty of someone else. The fundamental difference between the tyrant and liberty, is a tyrant has no respect for the liberty of others whereas liberty understands in order for people to be free the exercise of their liberty extends to the point where it interferes with the liberty of another.

The second form of imposition is indirect or collective. An individuals ability to do as they please is largely determined by their access to resources. For the intents and purposes of the modern world we can say their access to money which is the medium used to mobilize resources. We live in a world where systems exist that trap people in circumstances where they are not free. Those who participate in, benefit from, are ignorant, or indifferent to the systems that circumstantially trap people are collectively imposing on these people by maintaining these systems. Beyond a moral or altruistic compulsion it is the collective responsibility of people and in the personal interest of all people to ensure the systems we live within are a reflection of liberty.

Concepts of Christianity Under the Lens of Liberty

As is the case with all religions there are varying degrees of discipline among Christians in regard to practice, but Christianity is a religion without any real code of conduct. A religion of no guidance, where one is required to confess belief that a man was god, and was sacrificed to forgive the sins of men. The premise stemming from the Judaic custom of sacrificing animals to atone for sins, because god likes the smell of burning animal flesh (Genesis 8:20). Otherwise as my favorite comedian Doug Stanhope points out, “… died for your sins? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage, what does one thing have to do with the other?” Christianity also peddles ideas of mercy, forgiveness, and love without stipulation or condition.

I am giving Christianity more attention than other religions. Mainly because I live in a country where about ¾ths of people consider themselves to be Christians, and also because I am quite familiar with the religion, having a brief period in my life where I prepared bible study as an inmate in the Milwaukee County House of Corrections. Christianity receives more attention because it is the most prolific mind fuck in this country and because it doesn’t require much research for me to be more thorough.

Before we get into the substance of Jesus alleged words according to the canonized gospels, I want to define and measure the concepts most strongly associated with Christianity. Belief and forgiveness, and forgiveness. Although there are varying interpretations most Christians hold that the only requirement for forgiveness is for a person to believe that Jesus died for their sins.

Person A harms person B. Person A believes Jesus died for their sins and person B does not. First, how can Jesus forgive you for something you did to someone else? He himself has experienced no harm from the individual. I understand most Christians prescribe to the notion that Jesus is god and this affords him the right to arbitrarily forgive his friends and excuse the evil they do to others. This is the heart of Christianity. If you believe in me, you are in my circle, and I’ll forgive you for whatever you do. Your god is not true to fairness, liberty, or objectivity. Your god advocates evil by excusing it for acknowledgement of him. Your god is not the creator because the creator exists in liberty as the hallmark of his creation attests to.

“Mercy for the tyrant is torture to the oppressed.”(1)

Justice, in the context of making the offended party whole or near to it, requires no forgiveness because the offense has been corrected. What was wrong was made right. Of course making the offended party whole depends on the ability of the transgressor and the nature of the transgression, but what is the point of forgiveness?

The idea of sin is that there are acts that are offensive to god. Christianity asserts that human beings are innately evil, born into sin, and thus require forgiveness. They would say human beings require forgiveness to reach heaven. On the assumption of god as the creator, and the presumption of the survival of consciousness after death or an afterlife, there is no sin.

The original subtitle of this book “the singular duality” is the essence of the explanation for the assertions in the aforementioned paragraph. There is only liberty. Those who are tyrants are tyrants by choice. We know the only sin is the imposition on liberty in all its forms and this is accurate. Yet there is no punishment for the tyrant, except in the tyranny the tyrant has chosen. Conduct in life is a duality between liberty and tyranny, but tyranny only exists by way of liberty.

Judgement from god is what? Judgement is the sum of your purposes, principles, and understanding. Not a judgement between good and bad, but a determination of your understanding and application of liberty or tyranny. No doubt the tyrant shouldn’t be free to impose for eternity. There are three options in consideration of the survival of consciousness after death: 1 the tyrant descends to an afterlife of eternal tyranny as is consistent with what he or she has chosen. 2 the tyrant returns to a place of tyranny (earth) and he or she is afforded the opportunity to change his or her values or maintain them. 3 the soul is destroyed or death is a dreamless sleep one never wakes up from.

Nothing definitive can be known concerning the fate of the tyrant. While improbable due to the difficulty of reconciling multiple lifetimes, 2 would be ideal. Much of what a person is and how they develop is based on the impressions left upon them throughout their lives. As an intelligent species advances and realizes the truth and ideal of liberty, the environment reflects these values. Any person born in a world with an understanding and systems built on values of liberty will produce individuals who think and apply those values. An unlikely fate for the tyrant because it is difficult to understand how one entity could be multiple. I suppose memory but unlikely because a lifetime is not simply memories and feelings, but the assembly of thought processes that characterizes the being. The most interesting aspect of reincarnation and how it relates to the fate of the tyrant, is presuming on 2, where does the tyrant go to enjoy tyranny once tyranny has run its course? That is, in consideration of the time we live in, where human beings are not likely to change course and will probably cause the earth to become uninhabitable within a century to century and a half? When the earth can no longer harbor the souls of tyrants, where are those souls confined?

Most people think hell is a disproportionate punishment as something done that had only temporary effects should not carry eternal consequences. However, principally, the tyrant has no regard for boundaries, he is arbitrary, and thus it is fair to mete to him by his chosen measure. Duration is in consequential. I’m only saying that hell is fair.

No one knows the fate of the tyrant, but as a being of liberty the fate of the tyrant is not my concern. He choses what he choses and I have chosen what I have chosen. Although a premise from Islam, it is a true premise and not a premise I think many Christians would dispute: what is it that god cannot do? God cannot go against his nature. The nature of god, the creator, is liberty. In this god cannot impose on that which does not impose. The fate of those who apply liberty is eternal liberty. As a being who understands and practices liberty, god cannot impose because unprovoked imposition would violate his nature. Furthermore, the liberty minded are of the same mind as god, any hostility from god towards such a being would be the same as someone who bites off their finger to spite their hand.

Forgiveness as a matter of heavenly entry is not required.

On personal matters forgiveness is only sought by the offending party. The offender seeks forgiveness because he or she seeks to restore a relationship that has been damaged by his or her imposition. This is a matter of the value the offended party sees in the restoration of the relationship. Good memories verse the offense, the probability that it would happen again, and the needs the relationship fulfills. Otherwise there is no real benefit to forgiveness.

Some say that forgiving someone is beneficial to the offended party, releasing them from the ill feelings they harbor for the transgression against them. Yet these feeling tend to dissipate in the absence of exposure to the offender. And if they don’t, then punitive action may be required. For the offender punitive action allows him or her to experience imposition as they impose on others. For the offended there is satisfaction in harm caused to someone who caused harm to you.

Forgiveness in the interest of liberty should be reserved for mistakes, otherwise forgiveness is condoning tyranny.


The simplest definition of love is a fondness unto possession or attachment. Love between two people begins as the exchange of behavior for behavior, where the needs met by one another’s behavior cause an attachment to form. As the relationship progresses, the experiences and history of the two people contribute to the attachment and has the potential to preserve the union as behavior becomes less desirable or fulfilling.

As the base ideal for an intelligent species what does love look like? What is an act of love? An act of love is sacrifice. Isn’t it the Christian belief that god so loved the world that he allowed his son to be sacrificed for their sins? Jesus himself is quoted as saying “greater love has no one than this than for one to lay down his life for his friends”. Ideal love on a planetary scale consists of every person being willing to sacrifice for every other. In this, the success of every individual is aided by every other person on the planet. The problem is it requires complete participation, and even in that unlikely scenario application will vary, disrupting the continuity of the product and lead to contentions; as in he or she doesn’t do as much as I do and so on and so forth. Second, it is compulsory and people naturally rebel against what they perceive as forced action. People are more inclined towards liberty, and many would rather be in a position to help themselves than to be helped, as help even as a sacrifice in the name of love, carries the shadow of perceived debt and unsolicited oversight.

We are a world of people that believes in love as ideal. What does the application of love as ideal actually yield. It is a world of circles and conflict. On the earth you have family circles, and one’s own family is held in a higher esteem than other families. You have friend circles, national circles, race circles, professional circles, and ethnic circles. Within these circles there are hierarchies of importance, biases and preferences that tend to compromise objectivity, and serve as the root of contention and indifference to imposition.

Before I proceed with the last paragraph concerning love, it is important for me to profess that I don’t have a problem with love even as I recognize deficiencies in it as a governing ideal. I don’t have an issue with what people choose to do as long as their choices don’t interfere with the liberty of others.

I always find it ignorant when people in the wake of some tragedy or injustice will assert that love will overcome hate. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Hate does not exist without love. Whatever it is that a person loves they will naturally hate that which is contrary, and that which threatens or harms the subject of their love. This unavoidable fact exposes Christian theology that god loves everyone. For example, if god loves those that keep his commandments, he cannot also love those who don’t keep his commandments or harm those that he loves. If god loves everything or everyone, god loves nothing and no one.

Perhaps my only love is liberty, it is the essence of what is good, and so I hate purposeful imposition, as well as the indifference, ignorance, and deception that allows it to exist in all its forms, direct and indirect.

The Gospels

Jesus ministry in Matthew’s Gospel begins in the 5th chapter. The basis of his ministry begins with selling people on the idea of an afterlife. Where obedience to god is not motivated by prosperity in this life, but in the life to come. A message apt to be received by a people living under the dominion of a foreign power, where social mobility of any significance outside criminality is as miraculous as any healing the writers of the gospels credit Jesus with performing. In the first 20 verses of the 5th chapter Jesus encourages the poor by selling them a pie in the sky, and in the 21st to the 22nd, he mentions hell that awaits those who have anger in their hearts without cause, as if such a thing has ever existed.

Judaism is a religion that boasts an all powerful god. In order for that reputation to be maintained, the followers of this god, as the followers of god today, must rationalize how he allows them to experience misfortune. Traditionally, and this is found throughout the old testament, god allows them to be conquered, carried off, and experience hardship because they have disobeyed him. The same as today, where hardship after hardship and unanswered prayers are usually seen by Christians as the result of their disobedience. Other justifications include hardship for the purpose of development, or an unanswered prayer because god has something better for them than what they asked for. After one is invested or psychologically coerced with the threat of eternal damnation to surrender their will to a false deity, it is easier to make excuses for the deity, than it is to acknowledge its impotence.

Jesus ministry is the changing of the excuse. It isn’t your disobedience, you are actually blessed in your poverty because poverty is more conducive to molding behavior that will allow you to enter the eternal bliss god has prepared for you. ( Matthew {5:3} Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. {5:4} Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. {5:5} Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. {5:6} Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. {5:7} Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. {5:8} Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God. {5:9} Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. {5:10} Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. {5:11} Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you,] and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. {5:12} Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew {19:23} Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. {19:24} And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.)

For those who mock you, who are powerful and possessed of wealth, let god take care of them, because there is eternal torment for your adversaries. Feelings of justice for those who are unable to enact it. (Luke{16:19} There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: {16:20} And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, {16:21} And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. {16:22} And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; {16:23} And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. {16:24} And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. {16:25} But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.)

As I mentioned earlier, something true by nature of every persons experience, that punitive action against someone who has harmed you is fractional justice. There is satisfaction derived from harm against someone who has intentionally and unapologetically imposed on you, so it is a step towards the righting of the wrong. One aspect of turning the other cheek and praying for your enemies is the satisfaction of believing they have just taken another step into hell. ({5:38} Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: {5:39} But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 5:43} Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. {5:44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; {5:45} That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.) In the parenthesized passage Jesus makes a true statement, although in the context of the preceding passages, he probably doesn’t grasp the reason for his true observation. (God) makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. This is true not because god is merciful and patient, this is true because the creator created man free, and if men are evil and are allowed to remain evil, then this is the will of humanity and god does not impose.

Liberty knows that the results that exist, exist due to the free will of human beings on this planet. If large swaths of the world experience hardship, it isn’t god allowing these things to happen according to his divine plan, it is a creator who allowed a species to evolve to be the dominate species on the planet, to be free, and this is what they have chosen. Liberty’s greatest issue with Jesus, is his teachings facilitate the ease by which tyranny is able to impose. For lack of a more precise and impactful term, it is the greatest mind fuck for oppression ever conceived. It is submission to evil and joy in that submission.

For the Christians, if the joy derived from their version of righteousness, or the prospect of being a son of god isn’t a great enough motivator for forgiveness, they are compelled to forgive or they will not be forgiven by god.

(Matthew {6:14} For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: {6:15} But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. a certain king, which would take account of his servants. {18:24} And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. {18:25} But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. {18:26} The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {18:27} Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. {18:28} But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. {18:29} And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. {18:30} And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. {18:31} So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. {18:32} Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: {18:33} Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? {18:34} And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. {18:35} So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.)

The first issue to be had is the fact that no one has ever done anything to god. If I don’t forgive someone for something they have done to me, what is god going to hold over my head? Second, if there is a good purpose to be derived from an action the motivation for doing it, doesn’t have to include fear. What good purpose does it serve? It isn’t an absolute. Sometimes it will serve a good purpose and other times it will not, history, the nature of the offense, the relationship between the individuals, as well as other factors have to be considered.

This is the nature of religion itself, the conditioning of unrelated consequence based motivation that corrupts thought processes. An example would be ensuring your child doesn’t harm his or her self by touching a hot stove. The child can be instructed not to touch the hot stove because it will burn them, and obviously, no one wants to be burned. The child understands the purpose of not touching the hot stove. The other approach is, if touch that stove I’m going to beat your ass. The motivation for refraining from the action has nothing to do with understanding why the action should be avoided, the action is avoided because of the indirect consequence of the action which is the threat of force.

This form of authority is a plague through out human civilization, and it is well ingrained among human beings even outside of religion, but religion is the basis for this line of reasoning. It isn’t moral authority only, but also intellectual authority. Where credentials or position alone will cause someone to accept a conclusion without being provided or understanding an explanation. God said, my dad said, my priest said, my professor said, the president said, the FBI said, an economist said, and so on and so forth. The retardation of the species is something I intend to write about in great detail in an upcoming project, but it is difficult to write about religion without touching on the subject of non-reason based authority.

Forgiveness is required for those who request it from Christians in perpetuity. Peter asked if he should still forgive after 7 times, and Jesus told him in Matthew (18:21), not 7 but 70 times 7, which Christians interpret as perpetual forgiveness. It is the advocating of evil to excuse it, and ultimately inviting and encouraging a tyrant to impose. A bully punches your son in the mouth everyday and apologizes, do you tell your son not to resist, but to forgive as much as he does it? If someone steals something from you every time they see you, but asks for your forgiveness, do you continue to forgive them and provide them with opportunities to steal from you, which is an imposition on your liberty by reducing your means to be free? Obviously, no one applies these teachings in this manner, but we can’t ignore how contrary to liberty and human interest they are. They are a reflection of the Christian god.

Jesus teaches people to pray for what they need, for forgiveness, for his plan to come to fruition, and of course, praise, presuming there’s a better chance I can get something from you if I say something nice about you.

(Matthew: {6:9} After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. {6:10} Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. {6:11} Give us this day our daily bread. {6:12} And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. {6:13} And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. {6:14})

Let’s be honest, the actual god of most is a genie who grants some of their wishes, provides them eternal life, and avenges transgressions against them. It’s the same genie for everyone, but each person thinks that this genie favors him or her a little more than everyone else.

An imposition, even a benevolent imposition still brings responsibility for god to bear on the human condition. It also compromises his objectivity in providing favors for acknowledgement. The first sentence is more relevant than the second in substantiating why the creator cannot answer prayer, and leads into the explanation of why the creator can not have a plan.

The idea of god having a plan or intervening, places blame on god. If god has a plan, then god is a tyrant, but tyranny is contrary to the preservation of an intelligent species and so it is inconsistent with what can be observed through the creation. Supporting evidence of god not being a tyrant is the complete lack of evidence that there has been any intervention on this planet coming from forces outside of the creatures on this planet and bodies within the solar system. A tyrant god would intervene arbitrarily and with regularity as he pleased. Furthermore, if god has a plan, god is responsible for all the misery endured by all of humanity because he knowingly caused it to happen. And his plan on the present trajectory is for human beings to be tyrants, for most of the population at all times in recorded history to be the servants and sufferers for a few, and then for the species to become extinct. Or, god does not have a plan, and human beings are responsible for the misery, tyranny, and world they created.

The answering of your prayer is determined by your ability to get the subject of your desire and for elements outside of your control to work for the desired outcome.

Jesus instructs his followers that god is a provider, to the extreme that they should neglect the pursuit of what they need and allow god to provide for it.

(Matthew {6:25} Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? {6:26} Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? {6:27} Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? {6:28} And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: {6:29} And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. {6:30} Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith? {6:31} Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? {6:32} (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. {6:33} But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. {6:34} Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof. Matthew {7:9} Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? {7:10} Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? {7:11} If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?)

The verses encouraging lack of preparation and reliance on god, are shortly preceded by the verses against the pursuit of money, not being able to serve god and money. (Matthew 6:24). Personally, I like the analogy he used that you cannot serve two masters, because it is a good tool in expressing interest conflicts. Something I use frequently in discussing representation and class interests. (2) However, the creator, as he freely created the universe and perhaps that which preceded it, created it free, to create within it, and therefore, he requires no service. In fact, if god did have a preference, because your ability to do as you want to do is largely determined by how much money you have, for the sake of broadening the beauty you could produce, god would want you to pursue money but short of the point of tyranny. If what you do to get money does not cause you to become a tyrant, as in impose on others directly, through deception, or through contributing to a systemic or collective tyranny on others, serving money is service to your liberty, and liberty is god.

When Jesus is asked about divorce he answered that what god joined together let no man tear asunder, that the two become one flesh, and if any man divorces his wife for any other reason than fornication, then he causes both of the them to commit adultery. (Matthew {5:31} It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: {5:32} But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. {19:3} The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? {19:4} And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, {19:5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {19:6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.)

Marriage is a commitment arising from love, which is the attachment that forms when the behavior of one meets the needs and desires of the other and vice versa. There is a great probability that with the development of the two, needs and behavior will change, and the behavior that caused the attachment to form may change, or the needs of one will change rendering the formerly preferred behavior obsolete. If one or both of the parties are no longer benefiting from the commitment, why should they stay committed? In Matthew 22:30 Jesus tells the Sadducees, that in heaven there is no marriage, but people are like angels. From the Christian perspective, Jesus also teaches that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out, or if your hand causes you to sin you should chop it off (Matthew 5:29), and ill accept a figurative interpretation that what ever it is that causes you to sin according their definitions of sin you should remove that obstacle. Therefore, if marriage is temporary, why should two stay committed to one another when the burden of this commitment will likely encourage them to sin?

To go one further, Jesus in defense of healing a man on the Sabbath, asks is it lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath? (Matthew 12:10 to 12:12) Was man made for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath made for man? (Mark 2:27) If marriage becomes something that is no longer beneficial for the parties involved, reducing their quality of life, is marriage intent on good or evil? And was marriage made for man or was man made for marriage?

Opportunity is a component of liberty, and should the opportunity arise to release oneself from a burden for the benefit of both parties, why maintain the tyranny when liberation can occur through a conversation and some paperwork? 50% of marriages end in divorce, but I wonder what that percentage would end in divorce, had some people not held onto their marriage for religious reasons, financial reasons, or the sake of preserving a family unit? Liberty commands nothing in that respect, people are free to maintain or break a commitment for whatever reason they choose.

Jesus asserts that if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her in his heart. Sounds like he’s undercover lobbying for burkahs, as no man can look on a woman with lust in his heart unless that woman provokes such a lust with her appearance.

The exercise of liberty begins with desire and desire is motivated by pleasure, which is not as some would confuse that statement as sensationalism but pleasure in all its forms. Human beings see only value, and an action is motivated by the value of pleasures. For the Christian, he or she feels pleasure when they abstain from looking lustfully upon one another that exceeds the pleasure derived from looking lustfully upon one another, albeit in some cases, it isn’t the pleasure of doing gods will being the greater pleasure, but the guilt and fear of offending god not being worth the momentary pleasure of the gaze.

If a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart it is at most the predecessor of an opportunity for both to become closer and enjoy one another’s company. It causes no harm as the woman is not privy to the mans desires and so the action is unimposing.

Jesus demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the order in which feelings, thoughts, and actions take place. He asserts that evil thoughts and evil action proceed forth from the heart. (Matthew {15:19} For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:) What is in the heart can generally be thought of as feelings. There is no feeling or emotional response that doesn’t begin with a thought or a perception. One feels how they feel because of what they are thinking about, or in some cases something they perceive, as when one encounters a lion they are afraid of the lion without much in the way of thought. What one thinks and how one thinks generally has to do with their life experiences, circumstance, motivation, opportunities etc. It is the environment that molds the individual to a large degree. The cause of an evil act or thought begins with the evil existing in the environment, not what’s in a mans heart.

Jesus tells those who are weary to take his yoke, because his yoke is easy and his burden is light. (Matthew {11:28} Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. {11:29} Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. {11:30} For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.) But a yoke is still a yoke and a burden is still a burden. Whereas liberty, is no yoke, and has no burden. It is understanding that ones own best interest is served through the application of a few principles that allow all people to be free in a multi-being existence.

Those who are not with us our against, and those who do not help to gather help to scatter are Jesus words in Matthew 12:30. Those who are not against liberty are for it, in the sense that as long as what you do doesn’t impose on others, you are free to do you with those of the same mind, and all others are free to do them.

Imagine a white man was handing out food to homeless people. There were only white people receiving the food until a black woman came for a meal. The white man told her “It is not good to give the children’s food to the dogs”. This is treating someone different based on their race, the man is a racist.

In Mark 7:26 to 7:29 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. {7:27} But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs. {7:28} And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. {7:29} And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

Healing was a matter of saying the word, so the analogy in the sense of the children to be filled first isn’t applicable, because there is nothing of substance being dispersed. Healing is a matter of a word. Unless of course Jesus has magic points, and each healing he has to dedicate magic points to. Christians contend that this passage demonstrates that Jesus was not a racist by way of breaking from the custom of not talking with non-Jews or woman. The article this explanations comes from goes on to correct the translation, pointing out the word used for dog doesn’t actually mean dog but “small dog” or “puppy”, but whether a dog or a small dog, the analogy is rendering one group inferior to another, and the response is the denial of service based on ethnicity. The Christians belief that Jesus was god, and if god, the evidence isn’t a willingness to deviate from the cultural norm but remain in error, but to deviate to the degree of objective right. I’m not concerned with whether or not Jesus was being racist or not in the eyes of the most deluded of Paul’s followers (Christians), and the only reason why this section retains this assertion and criticism is for the purpose of allowing liberty to address the topic. Jesus was worse than a racist to me, Jesus was worthless in terms of what he offered the people of 1st century Palestine in terms of collective action that could improve their lives under Roman occupation.

Liberty recognizes no racial nor ethnic inferiority or superiority. Racism is an issue of universal boundary, which states no person would want be disadvantaged due to their race, and so to treat someone differently based on their race, is the crossing of a boundary by creating a world where some have less opportunity.

At the same time, it is understood that prejudices exist, the result of repeated impressions left on people by groups or about groups that cause people to have a view of groups based on race or appearance. The difference between prejudice and racism, is once personal contact has been established between a prejudice person and a member from the group of their prejudice, the interaction between the two serves as the basis for the judgement, whereas the racist will allow his prejudice to affect treatment and serve as his idea about the person regardless the merits that would otherwise be acknowledged in the interaction.

State supported racism is tyranny and is intolerable as it imposes on the opportunities of the members of a group. Personal racism is tolerable if it is unimposing. If a person has deep impressions concerning a group of people that causes them to view members of that group a certain way, and he refuses to allow his views to be changed, but isn’t actively imposing on others directly or by limiting opportunity, then why isn’t he free to have those views? The same as the Christian perspective is tolerable as long as it’s principles are not the basis for law, even though much of Christian doctrine is contrary to liberty and thus in conflict with human interest. There are Christians who prefer not to interact with non Christians, Muslims who prefer not to interact with non Muslims, blacks that prefer the company of blacks, and whites the same as the previous. Liberty holds that people are free to be free as long as the exercise of their liberty doesn’t impose on the liberty of anyone else.

Racism, which is only one form of factional superiority, receives much more attention than it deserves. Mainly because in the United States it is no longer state sanctioned and even socially it is rarely tolerated. I am of the position that personal racism should be tolerated with the encouragement of vocalization. Not because I am pro-racism, but because overt racism is preferred to covert racism. The only way people will be honest about their views, is if they feel they can express them without fear of retribution.

For those who seek to establish a more cohesive species, the only way to change the mind of a racist, is welcomed and repeated impressions that are in direct conflict with his prejudices.

The first chapter of the gospel according to John reads in “{1:1} In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. {1:2} The same was in the beginning with God. {1:3} All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. {1:4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {1:5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

The idea is that prior to creation there was only god, and god spoke existence into being. The word of god created everything, and then became a man. The word being god in the sense that it came from god. I don’t care to debate that which has no impact on behavior and how it relates to liberty, but I do mention it only to insert the point that nothing can know or meet god with any certainty.

Anything that is from something greater than the subject can claim to be god, and the subject has no way of knowing whether it is the supreme or if it is something in the middle. For example, if a person dies and has an NDE, they don’t know where their consciousness is, the laws in regard to the conscious interaction within it, or the status of being or beings in his or her presence. The same as a fish being pulled from the water, if intelligent, would have no understanding of what existed above the water until it was pulled from it. The point being, one cannot know if they are in the presence of the supreme, except through the application of the supreme’s principles, which can be inferred from his creation.

What we know of the creator is he is a creator, and in his creation he caused an intelligent species of life to evolve that all want to do as they want to do, much of which is creative. We understand that the respect of boundaries is required, in the sense that what someone else does should not interfere with the ability of another to do as they do. This includes support, ignorance, or indifference to a system that imposes by limiting opportunity or prevents the majority interest from being represented in the collective decision making body. We have boundaries and opportunity, but really only boundaries, as a system that exacerbates and exploits the disadvantages within it is imposing on the disadvantaged as they experience a level of freedom that is below what is acceptable for the advantaged. Along with other matters of collective decision making like the creation of laws and the appropriation of tax dollars which are decisions made largely at the exclusion of the public in the United States. Or collective decision making in regard to international relations, the use of force financial or physical, overtly or covertly, to limit or deny people their right to self determination to ensure conditions are right for exploitation by the US and other western corporations.(3) You cannot talk about liberty and boundaries without mentioning the environment and the cause of its impediments to individual freedom.

Additional evidence for liberty can be found in the mechanism whereby intelligent life will discover fossil fuels and destroy its habitat if it is organized in tyranny, regardless if the population that is a part of the tyranny calls it freedom by name. For human beings, the will and technology exist to make a timely transition in the interest of ensuring habitability of the earth for future generations, but the decision is an economic and political one, and such decisions are not in the hands of the general population. The general population has an opportunity to vote only after candidates have been selected by a relatively small portion of the population. I am referring to the requisite of having to be from one of two business parties and raise enough money to be competitive in a race by representing paramount the interest of your funders.

Intelligent species organized contrary to liberty will destroy itself through the destruction of its habitat or conflict. As global warming continues areas of the earth that are presently habitable and presently produce necessities will no longer do so. This will cause migrations, put strains on resources, which will be compounded by the ever increasing size of the population in habitable areas. Competition and conflict will increase among a species that has the ability to destroy all life on the planet. Again, the point is, liberty is required for the perpetuation of intelligent life, to avoid a premature extinction, as well as ideal in desire, and the observable state of the creation.

Whether god became his spoken word, and then became a man I do not know. What I do know, is that the creator, god supreme, is liberty. The difference between the supreme, and the deities of religion, is the supreme can be seen in all things, whereas the gods of religion are a mere compilation of contradictory statements in conflict with the observable reality, that are seen only in paper. Even their existence is a product of the liberty taken by men to project authority and achieve the desired behavior conducive to tyranny.

The most well known and widely peddled Christian scripture is John 3:16 “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believith in him should not perish but have everlasting life”. I do not recall the origin of the following quote, but it demonstrates the deficiency of Pauleen Christianity: “If what you believe, does not affect how you behave, then what you believe is not important”.

How does believing in Jesus govern your behavior? More so, if as the Christians believe based on the acknowledgement of their Judaic origins, that god intervenes at will in the affairs of human beings, why does god have to offer his son as a sacrifice to save humans from their sins? An act contributing nothing to the liberty of human beings on earth, serving as a direct source of tyranny through the church for centuries, and a tool of conquering powers to subjugate conquered and underclass people to the ruling power.

When asked which commandment was the greatest, in Matthew 22:35 to 22:40 he says the greatest commandment is to “…love the lord thy god with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and all thy mind, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself”. Which is no direction at all due first to subjectivity of the word love. Second, how do you love god? Keeping the commandments? Acknowledgement and praise? And when your gods commandments are not consistent with the principles governing creation, then what god is it that you are loving and pledging your allegiance to? As already demonstrated, a god which is neither true nor ideal.

To love your neighbor as you love yourself is subjective. Suppose a man is begging for money. One may reason to love him is to give him some money, while another may see love as not giving him money because the act enables him to remain in a lowly position in life. Any act can be rationalized as an act of love depending on the actor’s inclination.

A man supremely minded recognizes this man has been imposed upon by a set of circumstances associated with a system he is a part of. The supremely minded acknowledges his responsibility in contributing to this imposition and understands it is incumbent upon him to contribute to his liberation, even if the contribution is only sufficient towards the liberation from some short term desire: food, drugs, alcohol, etc. In consideration of time, resources, and opportunity, the supremely minded seeks to assist as he is able. The supremely minded understands that the only difference between himself, and the beggar, is the beggar was born into the position he was, and the beholder was born in his position. Yet had he been born as the beggar, began life as he began it, with the same circumstantial developmental disadvantages, he would be the beggar because he is part of a system that produces beggars. His act is not love, nor is it altruistic, but an act of justice, progress towards righting a wrong, of liberation, and he does not exalt himself for his great compassion or mercy, but recommences the man as one proudly making a payment to a creditor. To reiterate the point liberty makes in regard to social responsibility, a system that traps the disadvantaged, is a collective imposition on the disadvantaged.

The ignorant may believe their ignorance is an excuse, we should recognize that ignorance is a product of motivation, and motivation reveals the values of the individual. Ignorance concerning the system they are a part of, is based largely on someone who values their advantages above knowing where they came from. Who looks on the disadvantaged but doesn’t ask why the disadvantaged occupy that state. While it is true that circumstance plays a major role in the formation of the individual, the advantaged person has ample opportunity to overcome ignorance, whereas the disadvantaged person is much more at the mercy of his or her circumstances.

After Jesus preaches not to store up riches in this world, instead to store riches in heaven he concludes with John {6:21} For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. While abstaining from earthly riches has no bearing on the riches to be had in an afterlife, liberty does approve of the sentiment that where our treasure is there will your heart be also. In the sense that those who value liberty should have liberty, and liberty eternally, whereas those who value tyranny should have the subject of their understanding and desire. Plainly, the latter is storing your riches on earth, while the former is to have your treasure beyond. But, liberty is like the candy, you can have it now and later. And on the subject of Jesus, what is liberty on earth, but “gods will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?

Jesus warns against false prophets. (Matthew {7:15} Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. {7:16} Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? {7:17} Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. {7:18} A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. {7:19} Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. {7:20} Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.) What is a Christian but the fruit of Jesus? The dominant nation in the world is a nation where 75% of people identify themselves as Christians. This nation has a history of imposition on other peoples and nations the likes of which has been generally alluded to in previous portion of this publication, and includes murder, theft, the impoverishment of billions, and interference in peoples collective self determination processes.
Domestically, despite a wildly productive and dedicated workforce, millions of people in this country have little to nothing to show for their productive efforts, i.e. a lack of accumulation of surplus income. The largest prison population in the world,(4) a large homeless population, a populous that has no representation in government, and a deceived people who are isolated and alienated to the point where their dissatisfaction causes them to want to kill other people indiscriminately and on a regular basis.(5)

Your leaders are nearly all Christian. The point being, your fruit is not good so how can you come from a good tree?

Jesus himself did nothing, had no plans or solutions for the problems facing the people. He drew people off into a fantasy which is detrimental to a people living under occupation. That fantasy, persists to today, much to the satisfaction of the present rulers as it makes for a more passive herd. Neither his own fruits nor the fruits of those who claim to be like him are good.

I know your organizations feed the homeless and provide shelter, as well as condescend with assertions that the individual is in the situation they are in 100% based on choice, but god has a plan for them. If you are truly concerned with disadvantaged people, not homeless only but disadvantaged, as your love of your neighbor requires you to be, you solve the problem by eliminating the cause, not reducing the degree of the problem for your own satisfaction and an opportunity to spread your cancer.

You people are like a person who uses half of his property to grow vegetables and the other half to raise gophers. You shoot the gophers when they eat your vegetables, but as long as you raise gophers, gophers are going to keep eating your vegetables. Which is to say you create problems and attempt to solve the problem without addressing the cause which is of your own creation.

Your fruits are generally the results of this world. Contrary to some of your circles that don’t extend outside of your class, definitely not beyond your nations borders, life is not the dream you are living. And the dream many of you are living is only a dream in perception and for the sake of appearances.

What ever your objection may be, in John 4:24, Jesus says god seeks those who worship in spirit and in truth. The spirit is liberty, which can be seen in all things, and the truth is the same for the same reason. Seen in all things because all things exist as the result of free will, even the trajectory of inanimate objects in space were set in motion by the beginning of the universe, which was the decision of something, or the freely created laws of something, that caused the universe to exist.

For those who point to Jesus miracles as a source of his fruit, before I extend my skepticism, his miracles required no effort if the story is taken at face value.

The gospels were not written until after Jesus and his disciples were all dead. There is no mention of Jesus miracles in any of Paul’s letters. The point being, it isn’t difficult to attribute supernatural powers to someone, after both the person and their most interior circle is gone.

While some people assert that Jesus miracles were probably tricks, there is a book dedicated to the subject I haven’t had the pleasure of reading, I lean more towards the likelihood that the fraud was perpetrated by the gospel writers. Paul not mentioning Jesus miracles is beyond comprehension given his interaction, however unwelcomed, with the disciples. If I am making a case for Jesus, shortly after his death, that he rose from the grave and that eternal life is promised for those who believe in him, I would remind people that part of the evidence was the supernatural healings that took place through him. Of course you cannot mention supernatural healings if it wasn’t part of the story until after you died. I am of the opinion that the stories were added when the gospels were written and anyone who could have disputed it was already dead.

When Jesus is tempted by Satan what is it that Satan wants from Jesus? He wants Jesus to worship him. Worship is what your devil wants? To take the gift of your free will? Any being that requires worship is not god the supreme, as god the supreme has created you free, for you to be free so long as your freedom doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others, as is required for all to be free. Anything beyond this, are devices of man used to control his fellow man.

Immaculate Conception/Crucifixion

Matthew and Luke both provide accounts of angels appearing to Mary to inform her she was going to carry the son of god and he will be conceived without sex.

Luke {1:28} And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women. {1:29} And when she saw [him,] she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. {1:30} And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. {1:31} And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. {1:32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: {1:33} And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. {1:34} Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? {1:35} And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. {1:36}//Matthew {1:18} Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. {1:19} Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man,] and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. {1:20} But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. {1:21} And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. {1:22} Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, {1:23} Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. {1:24} Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: {1:25} And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

The purpose of the immaculate conception has two parts. First Christians believe this prevents Jesus from inheriting original sin from Adam making him a pure sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. The second, is to fulfill prophecy, as Matthew asserts in his account quoting 7:14 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” The problem is, the original Hebrew word in Isaiah is Almah, which translates as young woman, not virgin. (7) There is no Judaic basis for the messiah being born a virgin birth.

It isn’t difficult to understand why people would want to execute Jesus. He was leading an occupied and struggling people away from the struggle and into fantasy. While this by itself isn’t deserving of death, Jesus led people away from their potential liberation harming not only the individuals taken from reality and put into the fantasy, but also the entire Jewish population in their absence for resistance. Beyond resistance, if we are to believe that Jesus words are truly represented in the gospels he taught against productivity which is harmful to the Jewish community regardless of an inclination for resistance or not.

On the other side of it, Jesus had a positive role as he did serve a somewhat liberating role in drawing people away from the Sadducees who were basically the Jews expected to maintain order among the populous for the Romans, which was lucrative for them through the sale of offerings at the temple as well as cash contributions. In the same respect he was liberating in challenging the interpretations of the Pharisees who instructed the rank and file members how to apply scriptures in their lives, the same as pastors today.

The point being, Jesus wasn’t hated by his people solely because he led people to believe he was the messiah, but because he affected their interests. What he was doing was detrimental to the revolutionary Jews, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and his message could be interpreted as challenging Roman rule.

In the end, the gospels record Jesus saying “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me”. There are various interpretations Christians use in an effort to reconcile this verse. One being it is a quotation of a Psalm intended to remind of prophecy, and the other it was Jesus as a man feeling forsaken by friends, family, and even god, which Christians can further assert was done so that Christians can feel ok with the feeling of god forsaking them as even Jesus felt like that.

Christians will also contend that god didn’t actually forsake Jesus because his beating and death was necessary for human salvation, even though Jesus clearly thought he was forsaken by his god, which attests to the idea that Jesus was not god, and had he thought he was the Christ, he was forsaken in god not allowing him to fulfill the roles of the Christ. (8)

Whatever your interpretation is, the truth remains that the creator, did not forsake him, as the outcome is consistent with the liberty of people deciding to kill him.

I’m not going to go into detail concerning the little bit I know of the short comings of Christianity in preserving an accurate and non-biased record of the life of Jesus. I will mention a few facts and common sense conclusions that anyone who calls them self a Christian should know. This is in the event that the war between a Christians faith and their god given intellect hasn’t caused them to vomit, pass out, and to stop reading. I didn’t want to include this prior to discussing the gospels because my focus is on how Christianity is inconsistent with liberty, and there are books dedicated to the history and inconsistencies of Christianity.

Authorship, Dating, and the Epistles

This short section is one of the few deviation from the mission of the book. A deviation in that the book is the establishment of Liberty as being true, ideal, the essence of existence, and thus the essence of the creator of existence, as well as the ruler by which the precepts of religion may be measured and found consistent or inconsistent with the truth or god. It is just difficult for me to write on the subject of Christianity without pointing out a few facts that probably 99% of Christians do not know.

To accept texts as true and sacred, and allowing them to serve as the ultimate authority in one’s life without considering the sources has to be the most careless move one could make with their own life. Any information a person brings to you, before you accept it to be true you are going to have questions concerning who wrote it, what sources they drew from, and various other questions having to do with the motivation and bias of the author(s). Yet with religion, likely because it is something passed down from previous generations and usually introduced to children does not offer this information and the information is not requested by its adherents

The gospels were not as preachers imply written as events were taking place. In fact the gospels were not even written by eye witnesses. The earliest of the gospels was written between 70ad and 80ad, nearly 40 years after Jesus was executed, and although there are some speculative theories concerning authorship, the writers are anonymous, with the last gospel, the Gospel According to John being written around 100ad by multiple authors.(9)

The earliest material within the New Testament are Paul’s epistles which were written by Paul. While there is a scholarly consensus that Paul wrote at least 7 of the 13, the other 6 are the subject of varying degrees of dispute.(10) It is important because the theology of Christianity is Paul’s creation. Interestingly enough, in Paul’s epistles there is no mention of any of Jesus miracles, and with the exception of John, there are few parallels from the gospels to Paul’s message of Christianity.

The gospel of John being the last gospel written that was included in the cannon, written by authors who were influenced by the doctrine of Paul fits the theology better than the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but nearly all the gospels were likely influenced to some degree by Paul’s evangelism.
In the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine was in the process of uniting the Roman empire, the east and the west. In an effort to unite the empire he choose Christianity as the state religion, and likely inspired by Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus claimed he had a vision. In adopting Christianity as the state religion, he summoned all the bishops to Nicea. This is where the tenants of Christianity were established, where Jesus officially became god to Christians. Other groups of differing opinions did not have bishops and were not given invitations. (11)

The foremost authority on Christian history and texts, Bart Erhman discovered that stories and verses that appear in the modern day gospels, did not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Meaning they were added.

One such story was the John chapter 8:1-11. This story where the woman caught in adultery is surrounded by accusers prepared to stone her, that explain to Jesus that the law commands that she be stoned but what does he say? The story gives birth to one of Jesus most famous remarks let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This story does not appear in any manuscript prior to the 12th century. Either god post dated this story because it wasn’t appropriate for pre-12th century people, or it was invented around the 12 century.(12)

Even the story itself, often looked at as an exemplary example of Jesus wit, mercy, and forgiveness is not that impressive when viewed through a critical lens. Obviously the punishment does not fit the offense, and in the eyes of liberty, the offense is hardly an offense because had the one she made the commitment to cared so deeply for her, either A: she would have wanted to honor her commitment, B: he would have wanted her to do what she wanted to do. Or C: he at the very least would not have wanted to turn her over to the authorities or mob and have her killed.

The first point of the story is unremarkable because the punishment does not fit the crime. The second critique is the lesson itself, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. How about instead of an adulteress, it was a pedophile? This man was caught in the very act of sodomizing a young boy? Is anyone for let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Maybe the Catholic priesthood, but not anyone from a party that is non-biased to the act. Is let he who is without sin cast the first stone a universally applicable teaching? Of course it isn’t because if it was a pedophile, rapist, or murderer, most people with stones would stone Jesus because it would be easier to see the greatest deficiency of Christianity, i.e. that Jesus condones the evil he forgives by excusing it.

The basis of Christianity can be summarized in the quote “we conclude that it is through faith alone that we are saved lest any man boast of his good deed”. It is ridiculous and causes me to return to the quote I referenced previously, that “if what you believe does not influence how you behave, then what you believe is not important”.

More than the insignificance of faith in someone being sacrificed for your sins and the complete lack of a moral code to serve as the basis of decision making is motivation. A key component of motivation is pride. While all motivation can be understood as pleasure, pride that one has in one’s self is a great source of pleasure. Pride is little more than what one considers to be good. In the above portion we can distinguish between boasting and pride, but throughout Paul’s writing he boasts of his work and Christian superiority while denouncing the act. Of course the boasting of good deeds has positive effects, as those who are aligned in the same ideas of good are encouraged or inspired by the deeds of others. A minor criticism not related to the general point against the doctrine is that a belief in irrelevance serves no purpose.

In the epistle of John, he writes “god is love, and there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear”. A preposterous notion. God is not love, there is no evidence of this in the creation. The first issue is the word itself is subjective, and there is no universally agreed upon definition. The most widely used application would be intense feeling of care, fondness, or desire which culminates in attachment. As far as love casting out fear it is quite the opposite as love is being in a constant state of fear of losing the subject of love.

One of my favorite quotes from the epistles is “honor the king, for kings were placed there by god”. All Christianity teaches subordination, as in “the greatest among you will be the servants of all”, but for the state, no where is that better embodied than in that quote. Don’t resist, as to resist the tyrant is to resist gods will. Because people did it, god willed it, so accept it.

End Notes

1: As much as I would to make this quote mine it is not mine. Unfortunately not only do I not know whose it is, I cannot locate the source. So credit to whomever credit belongs for one of the most succinct expressions of justice I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

2: The idea of the cited verse comes up when I think about the fact that a representative cannot serve the interest of his constituents when the interest of his constituents is in conflict with the interest of his funders. He must love one and hate the other, or in practice the representative lies to one (his constituents) and serves the other (his financiers).

3: http://orioncs.net/foreign-imposition/

4: The US has the largest prison population in the world, numbering 2.2 million people with nearly 5 million more on probation or parole (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Compare that to North Korea who has a mere 150,000 of its people incarcerated and yet is known to have some the strictest laws in the world. What North Korea doesn’t have, or maybe it does is an incentivized criminal justice system. Where for the patrol man to become a detective, to become drug unit, homicide, or be promoted to another agency he has to get arrests, and those arrests must turn into convictions. The same way a life insurance agent must sell policies to be promoted within the company, meaning he has to find buyers, police officers must find crime. And if the district attorney wants to become a judge he must get convictions. Generally if the judge wants to remain a judge he must hand down stiff sentences, although by now, the discretion of judges is limited by mandatory minimums and inflexible sentence guidelines.

Where does the legislation come from? From politicians responding to the desire from the public to be protected from criminals? Wrong! While no politician is going to miss a golden PR opportunity to use an event of public tragedy to further his place in the hearts and minds of the voters, who can just as easily choose the candidate from the other party who will pander, but be indifferent to their interest, much of criminal code legislation comes from those who profit from people being incarcerated.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that serves as a think tank consisting of people in industry that lobby for the passage of legislation created within the group, has been responsible for creating and lobbying for legislation such as three strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, truth in sentencing, among many others. ( The following reference lists over 30 pieces of criminal justice related legislation. Including admissions by former WI governor Scott Walker of ALEC providing the model bill for the Truth and Sentencing bill that became law in Wisconsin.


Correction Corporation of America was a member of ALEC for nearly 2 decades until 2010, when model bills for aggressive sentencing were being drafted and lobbied for. Today the attention of private prisons is focused on immigrant detention and release oriented rehabilitation, which is better for the image of the companies as well as probably more lucrative.

It isn’t only the for profit prison industry that has contributed to the creation of sentencing guidelines. Any company that stands to make a profit will invest in the legislative market and get a return on that investment. Companies that make the interlock breathalyzer systems have lobbied for the very legislation that requires DUI offenders to have them installed in their vehicles. “Representatives from the state’s five companies have for years helped write the interlock laws, participated in meetings, contributed to campaigns and united in a lobbying coalition that belies how fiercely they compete outside of Olympia.”

( Seattle Times, Anti-DUI Interlock Companies in State Helped Own Rules, by Brian M. Rosenthal, 5/28/2013. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/anti-dui-interlock-companies-in-state-helped-set-own-rules/)

Correction service providers, like those who manage inmate accounts or phone services providers are also among those not only that profit, but also use their profits influence policy and grease the wheels to gain contracts. Many of these providers offer the prisons who they establish contract kick backs to the prison for the fees they charge. As a person in charge of a jail or prisons budget it certainly makes sense to contract with a private company that will not only help reduce costs by delegating a responsibility that should be the prison or jails, but also creating a stream of revenue through kick backs. The additional costs fall on the backs of the poor people’s families who are incarcerated.

( Time, Meet the Prison Bankers Who Profit from the Inmates, by Daniel Wagner, Center for Public Integrity, 9/30/2014. http://time.com/3446372/criminal-justice-prisoners-profit/)

This note is not intended to be an expose on all the business interests that contribute to legislation that has a positive impact on their bottom line by creating misery for others. I’m sure there are books dedicated to the subject and it isn’t difficult for an interested party with near minimal effort to consider the beneficiaries of incarcerated people and find how those beneficiaries have contributed to legislation that furthers their profit based interest. These brief exploits are meant to provide examples of how profit contributes to the cause of this nation leading the world in both total numbers of incarcerated people as well as proportionate numbers of incarcerated people. This isn’t to say profit and career incentive is the only motivator of the United States world leading prison population, but it is significant.

Another is crime itself which stems from inopportunity. The most important statistic to consider in criminal justice that is probably the most under cited statistic, (drown out by the faux social justice activist crusaders who embellish themselves in a false aura of righteousness as they ignorantly miscorrelate racial statistics with incarceration statistics) is class. The median income before incarceration of an incarcerated male is 19,650 dollars per year, less than half of non-incarcerated males of 41,250 dollars. The difference in income between someone who is black and incarcerated and someone who is white is roughly 84 dollars per week.

(Prisonpolicy.org, Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the Pre-incarceration Incomes of the Imprisoned, by Bernadette Raybuy, and Daniel Kopf. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html)

Are they locking up black people because they are black or are they locking up poor people because they are poor? And is the disproportionate amount of black people who are locked up compared to their overall numbers, is it because they are black or is it because a disproportionate number of black people are poor because their ancestors were black during the long history of state sanctioned racism in this country? This note is fixed to the point of the United States being a leader of incarceration, but in the broader context we recognize it is the product of a Christian nation.

Not a Christian nation in the principles it was founded on as Christians will mistakenly assert but a nation of people who identify themselves as Christians, who believe they live in a democracy, who believe they have control over the laws that govern their country, and most importantly who are too indifferent to know better.

5: A nation of Christians, whose values are responsible for the general culture that exists within this country. 3 out of 4 of you. This includes the alienation and despair experienced by people in this country who express their dissatisfaction by indiscriminately murdering people in this country. Mass shootings are a Christian fruit, this is what the practice of Christian values on a societal level produces.

Your default defense will be to disassociate Christianity from the majority in this country who identify themselves as Christians, to make this nation a non-Christian nation, which has the effect of removing the mass killing byproduct from the Christian resume. Of course the problem is, that the only thing one must do to qualify as a Christian is believe that Jesus died for their sins.

What will not work, is comparing the teachings of Paul or the figure of lesser importance to the Christian doctrine Jesus, with that of mass killings and asserting that it does not teach that. You are the majority and are thus responsible for the political and economic system, as well as the byproducts of the social order that include dissatisfaction and alienation that leads to mass murder. That is your fruit.

6: http://orioncs.net/usroleingp/

7: Alma-wiki: There is no contention among qualified people concerning the word alma and what it means. I say qualified, because Christians will argue baselessly that the word means virgin. “Despite its importance to the Christian tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus, scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity”. The source for the quote comes from Marvin A Sweeney (1996): Isaiah 1-39: with an introduction to prophetic literature. P161.

A thorough explanation comes courtesy of Tovia Singer from Outreach Judaism, (outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/) A Christian who subscribes to Rabbi Singers material brought up the fact that the word alma means young woman to her pastor whose retort was that everywhere the word alma is used in the bible it means virgin. “The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures 7 times in the feminine and twice in the masculine. One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word almah appears in the bible is in the book of proverbs. The word proverb means to be like, thus proverbs is a book of comparisons between common, concrete images and lifes most profound truths. Proverbs 30:18-20 “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman” (alma) This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done no wrong”.” Singer explains the commonality is all of these things leave no trace. “Similarly, King Solomon declares that once a man has been sexually intimate with an alma, i.e. a young woman, no trace of sexual intercourse is visible, unlike a virgin who will leave behind a discharge of blood after her hymen is broken. The word alma only conveys age/gender. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin he would have used the betulah, not alma. The word betulah appears frequently in Jewish scriptures, and is the only word… that conveys sexual purity. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the masculine form of the noun means young man not male virgin. The word appears twice in Jewish scripture… all Christian bibles correctly translate as young man, lad, or stripling, never virgin…Christian bibles had no need to mistranslate because the verse was not misquoted in the New Testament.”

8: Newfaq.org/mashiach.htm, Judaism 101, Mashiach: The Messiah. “The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.” Jesus was not a political leader, a military leader, did not win battles for Israel, and denounced his role as a judge. Even if we grant the concession that his judgement was righteous and not judgemental through mercy and sacrafice, it does not change the fact that he failed to fulfill the roles that the Mashiach or Messiah was supposed to fulfil, which is one of the reason’s why he felt god forsook him because he was not given the opportunity to accomplish these things and prove he was who people allegedly said he was.

9: Among sane people there is little debate around the approximate dating of the synoptic gospels which is generally between 70CE and 80CE with Mark being the earliest based on the reliance of Matthew and Luke on Mark. After 70CE is generally accepted because the destruction of the temple did not occur until 70CE. The only debate is between Christian biased scholars who want the date to be earlier to prove that Jesus was prophetic, and reasonable people who recognize that the gospels reflect either the imminent destruction of the temple or were written after the destruction of the temple. The debate is a nonsensical sea of theory that seeks to reinforce myth or expose it, and it is nonsensical because it cannot be definitively proven.

We can infer from the fact that Paul as reflected in his writing never seen a gospel, and Paul died shortly after 64CE, that no gospel existed while Paul was alive. Regardless of the meticulous examination of the most minute details relating to the gospels, acts, and the historical period, it is ridiculous to assert an earlier date than 65CE based on the prominence of Paul in the proliferation of what is his Christianity, and the fact he never mentions anything from a gospel. What is agreed upon by Christian scholars and scholars of Christianity alike, is that no one was writing it down as it happened as is implied to rank and file members by preachers and evangelists across the country.

Scholars date the Gospel according to John later than the synoptic gospels with most putting the date between 90 and 100CE.

10: Paul wrote his epistles between 50ad and about 65ad. The letters he wrote after 62ad may not have been written by him. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents and Paul was responsible for the spread of Christianity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles The degree of influence Paul had on the authors of the synoptic gospels may be limited but the lens of interpretation that forms prior to the writing of the gospels is significant. The authors of the gospel according to John which was written decades after the synoptic gospels seems to be heavily influenced by Paul’s theology. The Jesus in the synoptic gospels is demanding and instructive, whereas the Jesus of the Gospel according to John is merciful, and preaching a message inline with Paul’s teaching that the only requirement is belief in him.

11: https://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/summer2018/270/nicea.html “ He had issued the invitation on the advice of a bishop from Córdoba named Osius. Perhaps Osius withheld a critical piece of information: only the Proto-orthodox churches had bishops. Neither the Gnostics nor the Ebionites received invitations.”

12: Portions Exerpted from: Bart Ehrman, Radio Interview, ‘Fresh Air’ WHYY Radio, Dec 14, 2005 (downloaded from :

“the earliest manuscripts we have of the gospel of John don’t have this story. And none of the Greek writing church fathers who comment on the gospel of John include it in their commentaries until the twelfth century. So twelve hundred years after the book itself was written. This shows that the early manuscripts simply didn’t have the story.” I was familiar with this story from a source in passing that I did not remember. Upon searching for the source I found the following which is a weak Christian attempt at refuting the scholarship. I don’t have the time to debunk it but this is the source where I rediscovered the work I am citing. Although I did not read the entire article I found the little I skimmed weak as the author began with assertions that the interview itself was staged, rehearsed, and that both interviewer and the scholar were skilled actors. Then contradicted the skilled actors assertion by noting his speech pattern, pauses, and stuttering. If the assertion is wrong, in a paragraph you can demonstrate the assertion to be wrong simply by naming the manuscript where the story appears or where it was cited prior to the 12th century. He didn’t do that so the criticism is invalid to me. (http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/DUMB/Ehrmin.html)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *