In the name of God/s, part 2: Christianity

  • Founder/s: debatable but I would say Saul of Tarsus (now known as Paul the Apostle or Saint Paul)
  • Approximate age: 2000 years
  • Place of origin: debatable; either Israel/ Palestine, modern Jordan, Syria* or Greek/Roman-occupied Egypt
  • Holy book/s: Bible
  • Original language of holy book/s: Aramaic or Greek
  • Demonym of adherents: Christians
  • Approximate number of current global adherents: 2,400,000,000
  • Place of worship name/s: church, kirk, chapel, cathedral

* This trail, going from Jerusalem (Palestine/ Israel) through Jordan to Damascus (Syria), is what’s known as the Road to Damascus, where Saul converted to Christianity. However, the New Testament was written in Egypt, which at the time was occupied by Greeks & Romans.

Why did I call Saul/ Paul the founder instead of Ieshua (Jesus)? As mentioned in a previous post series, Ieshua was a die-hard Jew who had no intention of divulging from The Law of Moses, and his teachings and life were radically different – in many cases irreconcilably opposed – to what the present-day Bible says. Though he did have a following while alive, it was Saul/ Paul who spread the faith to the Gentile (Greco-Roman at the time) world. Historians, including Christian ones, agree that this faith copied many concepts from neighbouring polytheistic faiths, and according to The Invention of Jesus these concepts didn’t come from Ieshua but some time after he passed.

In fact, all the Abrahamic creeds seem to love hiding their polytheistic origins. Christianity seems to be worst of all. See my previous post series for full details. But there are some things I like in it:

  • Many churches I’ve seen and heard of actually help the poor! They set up food banks, charities, etc. for those who need it,
  • They allow people of other faiths in. Very hard to find parallels of that in other faiths,
  • Wishy-washy as it sounds, Christians emphasise God’s loving nature. A complete break from its Judaic origin, and very important for followers – why should you worship a being that doesn’t give a hoot about you, or even actively hates you?
  • (‘Black’) churches are very lively.
  • In olden times Christians were often more open to new ways of thought, and more concerned with morality & how to be good humans. At least that’s the impression I’m getting through seeing people like Origen of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, George Mendel (who invented our modern concept of heredity), Martin Luther, etc.

Now on to the bad:

  • Many modern churches, especially ones with American televangelist influence (like most Nigerian churches), are parodies of themselves. Preachers come off like conmen, always showing off their oratory skills and to woo and win over congregants’ emotions as much as possible.
  • Most Christians are ignorant as shit about their faith, even church leaders. They don’t know that Egypt & Ethiopia were the very first Christian countries, or that Jesus’s real name was Ieshua/ Yeshua. And its emphasis on blind faith is even worse than Pakistani Muslims; no-one should ever “just believe” something. For the sake of sanity and true faith you must know and understand, or at least make efforts to find out,
  • It’s internally inconsistent, never mind proven untrue by evidence. How is it possible for God to be his own father and son?!? Why would he need to allow himself/ his son to be sacrificed just to prove how much he loves us? How come he decided to show his love after so many thousands of years since human creation, rather than right at the outset?
  • There’s no agreement on whether Jesus is God’s son or God himself. Either way, BLATANT PLAGIARISM FROM PAGANISM!!! Tons of polytheistic faiths in the past believed in demi-gods, incarnations of a god, holy families and the like – including the Greek & Roman religions Christianity was surrounded by in its early years. Judaism hates all those notions, yet Christians claim to be fellow monotheists? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  • The Pope. Sitting on the stolen riches of thousands of generations of (non-‘white’) people, even ones who became Catholic. And no-one challenges him,
Pope: “You’ve been praying too long. I want it back.”
  • Why are all modern Bibles translations of each other? Why are the oldest known versions in Greek when Ieshua (Jesus) spoke Aramaic?
  • Modern Christianity is extremely Eurocentric, e.g. most iconography is drowning in European Renaissance influence. Pre-16th century ‘white’ Europeans knew Jesus was a ‘black’ man and worshipped ebony or literally black idols of him & his mother (see featured image and Runoko Rashidi’s Black Star). Nowadays they fear the mere possibility, saying crap like “it doesn’t matter what colour he was” or “he was Middle Eastern therefore he’d have been somewhat tanned”. Try telling that shit to Ethiopian Christians,
  • Those icons are idols. Directly going against the commandment not to make graven images (Exodus 20:4),
  • Despite what Christians believe, Jesus was NOT sent to save the world. Not just The Invention of Jesus, even the heavily altered modern Bible says so; he explicitly says he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15: 21-28). That same passage also clearly shows Jesus was racist/ prejudiced, but against whom isn’t clear because Mark 7: 24-30 is exactly the same story but about a Greek rather than a Canaanite woman,
  • Christianity is a highly proselytising religion. Street preachers are extremely annoying, especially African ones. They scream like fucking banshees that we’re all going to hell and we must accept Jesus before it’s too late,
  • In my experience, Christians see Muslims as enemies. Not all Christians, only ones who follow Europeanised sects of the religion (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism, etc.), and most especially the proselytising ones. I reckon it’s because of the Crusades; Muslims were the single greatest threat to Christendom and European Christians still resent them for it. Hence the current “Muslim=terrorist” line, because deep down they are terrified even though they’ve been much worse,
  • It is strongly pro-slavery. Many OT & NT verses treat slavery as just part and parcel of life (Ephesians 6:5, Exodus 21:1-36, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Leviticus 19:20, Leviticus 25:44-46, Colossians 4:1, Luke 12:47-48, Deuteronomy 21:10-14).  Those that oppose it are exceptional and either ambiguous or only talk about freeing slaves under certain circumstances (1 Corinthians 7:21-22, Deuteronomy 15:12-15, Luke 4:18), and despite Galatians 5:1 Jesus himself never said a word against the slavery system.
  • It promotes self-hatred and guilt: we all inherited Eve’s sin (and neither she nor Adam was forgiven), we’re all born in sin, we’re all sinners in need of external salvation, etc. This led to the Skoptsy lopping off their dicks/ boobs, Opus Dei* members flagellating (whipping) themselves, and Puritans banning all forms of entertainment. Including football. In England.
*And others, like the residents of Guardia Sanframondi, Italy.
  • It promotes hypocrisy. Though not universally accepted, the doctrine of sola fide gives Christians the right to be total assholes & worse. Sola fide means faith alone in Latin, and says doing right or wrong makes no difference to whether we go to heaven or not. ALL that matters is belief in Jesus’s self-sacrifice; that’s the ONLY reason God favours anyone or stops anyone going to hell,
  • Too few Christians speak out against their leaders when they do something wrong, like raping a load of children or getting female congregants to perform sexual favours for them. Which is fairly ironic considering how anti-sexual the faith is.

Oh yes. Since the Bible is just the Torah + additions, it becomes clear that whoever God was in the Old Testament isn’t the same as in the New Testament. Either he had a change of heart, which would raise the question of why God’s so loving now when he wasn’t before, or he’s a totally different god, which begs the question who he is.

If the long-gone Gnostics were right and there are two different gods, one good and one evil, perhaps the Old Testament one is the evil one and the New Testament one is the good one? But then again, if sending his son (or himself?) to die for everyone’s sins is good, we’re all screwed.

For general interest here’s a link to the New Testament:

Back to Part 1

On to Part 3

2 thoughts on “In the name of God/s, part 2: Christianity”

  1. I’ve been wanting to rename “Christ”ianity for a long time to ‘Paulism’ or ‘Paulianity’, making “Christ”ians, respectively Paulites or Paulians. Just doesn’t have the same ring.

    I agree, though: most “Christ”ians are not monotheists, and neither, as you pointed out in “In the name of the God/s III”, are many Muslims in practice.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s