Category: Blog

Why Buddhism is Wrong

WHY I AM NOT A
BUDDHIST

 

 

BUDDHIST SITES

http://www.nst.org/

 

Index for this site

 

BUDDHIST TEACHING

BUDDHISM REFUTED

THE BODHISATTVA


WAS BUDDHA A SAINT?

BUDDHISM IS PESSIMISTIC

DEMELLO AND BUDDHISM

A CRITIC SPEAKS

BOOKS CONSULTED

 

BUDDHIST TEACHING

Buddha only
claimed to be nothing other than a human being who achieved the truth by human
effort without the help of any deity or God (page 1, What the Buddha
Taught). Buddha encouraged total freedom
of thought because self-effort and finding things out for yourself was the only
way to find the truth (page 2). Buddhism
has never lead to persecution or bloodshed (page 5). Buddhism rejects the Buddhism label because
nobody or no group has a monopoly on truth (page 5). Buddhism stresses seeing not faith (page
8). The word saddha is often taken to
mean faith but it means confidence that comes out of conviction or seeing. Questions such as is the universe eternal or
not or is the soul the same as the body or separate from it and is the soul
immortal are regarded as a waste of time in Buddhism (page 13, 14). The Buddha said that a man with a poisoned
arrow in him is wasting time if he refuses to let the arrow be taken out until
he knows who fired the arrow and what kind of poison is in it and so on (page
13, 14). For Buddha you get on with
living a good life. Buddhism is neither
pessimistic or optimistic for it takes a realistic view of life (page 17). Buddha denied that the faith he taught had
any esoteric doctrines (page 2). Buddha
advised doubt and said it was a good thing (page 2). He was not interested in being an authority
who must be believed and obeyed (page 3).
He taught that doubt was a good thing only if it led to greater
certainty for doubt could hinder one from attaining salvation or Nirvana.

Manas mind in Buddhist thought does not mean mind as in
spirit opposed to matter (page 21). Mind is a sense facility (page 22) like the
eye. Volition and karma are one and the
same thing in Buddhist thought (page 22).
Examples of volition are attention and will and love and hate. According to Buddhist philosophy there is no
permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered Self or Ego, as
opposed to matter, and that consciousness (vinnana)
should not be taken as spirit in opposition to matter (page 23). Buddha
declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation,
perception and mental formations, and that it cannot exist independently of
them (page 25). There is no such thing
as individuality or anything that can be called I (page 26). There is no thinker behind the thought
because none of the five things that compose you can be called I. You are not your body. You are not your consciousness. What you call I is simply a collection of
five impermanent things. None of them
can be you. They change all the time so
they cannot be you. Your experience of
yourself as being a person is false. It
is just like how each thing that makes up a toy is not the toy itself. Realising that there is no you is the secret
of happiness. This is enlightenment and
makes you a Buddha.

Buddha argued that impatience with suffering only makes
suffering worse and does nothing to alleviate it (page 28). The way to deal with suffering is to
understand how it comes about and how to get rid of it (page 28).

In Buddhism, karma is not a law that punishes you for doing
wrong and blesses you for doing right.
It is not about justice. It is
just a theory of cause and effect where bad results in more bad results for you
(page 32). Buddhism teaches that it is
not thinkers that think but thoughts that think and each thought has a reaction
good or bad (page 42).

The person who realises the supreme truth is the happiest
person in the world for he is free from the illusion of self (page 43).

Buddhism denies that you really exist and the next minute
instead of you there will be a being that only thinks it was you and the same
person as you. It rejects the idea of a
soul that goes back to God at death or that is reincarnated many times for
purification (page 51). It argues that
the concept of self the belief in I is the reason we are so selfish and unhappy
and capable of hate and harm (page 51).
Man creates God to be his protector.
Man invents an immortal soul in the hope that he will live forever. These beliefs arise from the evil illusion of
self which implies that self-preservation and self-protection drive man to
these beliefs. If there is no self then
there can be no God for God cant have self either and must need enlightenment. Needing enlightenment would mean he is not a
God at all but a travesty.

My comment is that these two beliefs must be the ultimate in
evil. If the idea of self is bad then
there is nothing worse than wanting to believe that a God will keep you alive
forever.

Page 55-59 refutes the lies of scholars that Buddha didnt
exclude the idea of a spiritual soul being your true self. These scholars mistranslate the Buddha to
promote their lie.

Buddhism teaches that you should not believe, I have self
or I have no self. Just experience
that you have no real self (page 66). Buddhism is not a philosophy of faith but
experience.

Buddhism is not promoting anything negative or annihilistic
by saying there is no self (page 66). On
the contrary you feel happier than ever when you realise the truth that I is an
illusion caused by the feeling I am that you have. After all there is nothing to
annihilate. It is belief in the self
that is negative and despairing not the realisation that there is no self. You can be a Buddha when alive and know that
there is no you and life still goes on and you enjoy it beyond belief.

Buddhism denies the concept of a free will that is
absolutely independent and holds that freedom is relative and conditioned (page
54).

The chapter on meditation says it can be done while working
so Buddhism does not require you to sit meditating and ignoring the poor at
your door.

Buddhism is certainly the noblest religion in the
world. But it is true?

Top of the Document

BUDDHISM REFUTED

Siddharta Gautama
was born in Lumbini about 560 AD and he was a Hindu prince. He wanted to know how to stop suffering his
discovering the way out of it made him the Buddha, the enlightened one.

 

Buddha wanted to
help people stop suffering by teaching them how to work and meditate so that
they would attain a state of consciousness that would deliver them from
suffering forever called Nirvana. He
described Nirvana in paradoxes and contradictions meaning that it is not like
anything we understand and is not material for Buddha sought to escape from
anything material. Nirvana means blowing
out because it is the blowing out of desire (page 293, Concise Guide to
Todays Religions
). Desire according
to Buddhism is the reason why we suffer.

Buddhism teaches
that I am not a person but a bundle of experiences.

 

Without Nirvana, the
bundle will be made into a new person in the next life by reincarnation thanks
to the law of karma, the power that returns to me what I send out of me. With Nirvana I will not be born again.

 

If I killed a person
in a past life, it may be that I will be killed by somebody in this one or a
future one. If I hurt a blind person in
a past life I could end up being born blind in a future one. If you are good you are closer to salvation
escape from matter and will be rewarded by good karma. If you work out all your karma you will not
be born again when you die because birth is a result of bad karma. It unfortunately never occurred to Buddha
that if birth is a bad thing that happens to you for having done wrong then how
did the first birth ever, come about?

 

If there was no
first birth and we always existed and were continually being born and dying
over and over again we will never get rid of the karma. If you have had an infinity of lives that
means you have an infinity of bad karma as well. It is impossible to work off infinite or
unlimited bad karma.

 

Salvation lies in
losing all desire. It is Nirvana – a
state of endless bliss and yet nothingness in the sense that there is no
material element there.

Buddhism doesnt see
the consciousness as a kind of soul.
Though you are aware of being a person who existed since your birth
Buddhism sees that as an illusion.

Buddhism denies that
there is a soul or that you are the same person all the time. In fact person is not the right word for they
think I am just a bundle of experiences with no personal identity and the
reason I suffer is because I think there is a real I. I think there is something about and in me
that makes me basically the same entity and individual all the time. With each moment I die and am replaced with a
new person who seems to be the same person that was around before but is a
totally different person. It agrees that
to your experience, it will be as if you do not keep turning into different
persons who never existed before but that is a mistake based on the trick of
memory. You think because you remember
that you were always the same person.
You are dying and being reborn all the time but it does not seem like
that to you. You think that you have
been the same person and being since you were born. When you believe you dont really exist, what
would you want deliverance from suffering for?
What would you want salvation from bad karma for?

 

Buddhism says you must
have no desire for the bliss of Nirvana but you experience it and enjoy it
passively.

 

Buddha believed that
suffering was caused by desire. Desire
causes bad karma which ties you down to the cycle of birth, suffering and
death. Desire is evil for it hurts so to
embrace it is to merit bad karma. When
you have no desire you can be perfectly happy in Nirvana so when you work for
anything else you have a misplaced sense of what is important. Buddha taught that suffering can be ended by
living out the Eightfold Path. These
eight rules forbid acting out of desire and harmful actions. Lying, hate and gossip for instance are
forbidden. You are not to do good
because you want to but to do it without desire but doing it with desire is
fine at the beginning for it takes hard work to eliminate the desire and it
happens gradually. But you will always
desire a little bit even when you are on the brink on Nirvana. Then desire will be taken away and you will
find yourself in a purely passive state wherein peace and happiness are given
to you but not willed or taken by you.

Buddhism is
frequently accused of advocating the committing of suicide in the form of
making sure you dont survive death or ceasing to be a person by becoming
enlightened. This is confusing for they
say there is nothing there to be saved and you realise that you are nothing
when you are enlightened yet they speak of Nirvana which you get when you are
enlightened as bliss. Many would say
that it is as true to say Buddhists are on a suicide mission as it is to say
that they are not.

 

Buddhism claims that
everything even the most powerful gods is subject to karma. This means then to get free from karma is to
exist no longer (The Spirit of Buddhism, page
22).

 

Some say you do not
lose your existence but only your existence as an individual. But if you are
just a bundle of experiences and have to realise that there is nothing there to
be left that means there is nothing.

 

Individuality is
regarded as an illusion to be delivered from.
But is being an individual really a bad thing? It would be nice to be an individual that
does not suffer. Pain is caused by a
part of the brain and it can be shut down.
It is impossible to see how if we are all ultimately one thing Nirvana
makes us all one – we can imagine we are individuals. The individual cannot shift consciousness in
such a way that she or he experiences herself or himself as being two or more
minds at the one time.

 

Buddhists look down
on us being individuals but say this is because of compassion us being
individuals is what causes suffering.
But look, there are different levels of suffering. There are INDIVIDUALS who are not Buddhists who are reasonably
happy. Is it not crazy to suggest that
being an individual is bad because there will always be some hitches? That is harshness not compassion.

 

The entire message
of Buddha is based on blind faith which destroys the credibility of its
morality. You dont know if it is all
true until you become a Buddha yourself.
But even then you are not sure for drugs, say LSD, can delude you into
having a mystically joyful experience.
Bad karma can delude you to think you are liberated and seem to
experience it. Many have considered
themselves to be enlightened without the Buddhist experience. Your mind does have the power to put itself
into a purely delusional state of awareness.
Before you go to sleep, you will feel so relaxed that you think and feel
you know that it will last forever and that nobody else exists but you to enjoy
this blissful peace. Even now this
minute, you can close your eyes and imagine that it is true that you alone
exist and will be safe forever. Buddhism
is a harmful faith for it is demanding and has only a dream that may be just a
dream to offer as a reward. People
should not suffer for guesses. There
have been people who have claimed to have been enlightened but then lost their
faith in it. Enlightenment cannot
deliver one from suffering simply because you cant be sure you have really
been enlightened and that uncertainty is itself a kind of suffering. The suffering means you cannot be delivered
from suffering after all! Buddhism
teaches that suffering cannot save you there you are! Enlightenment is a delusion.

 

The Eightfold Path
offers not morality but evil dressed as goodness. It cannot save the Buddhist because it is
used as an expression of superstitious belief.

 

And all desire need
not cause suffering. The desire we have
is preferred to the thing we desire so desire is an evil we like.

 

Nirvana is supposed
to dissolve your ego and your very self and free you from material laws. Buddhism claims that you can attain to
Nirvana without dying. Buddhists say it
is desire, the wish that you were your own person, not the body that blocks you
from Nirvana. That would mean that the
system does not encourage suicide. But
the fact that you have a body shows that desire is still in operation. You are not going to feed it and care for it
if you have no desire. You will just
waste away and die in a trance. So it
seems that Buddhism should advocate suicide for the body holds you in bondage
as well as desire. Desire may be the
main cause but the body is a symptom of desire and has to be destroyed. This would appear to call on you to kill
anyone who claims to have been enlightened.

 

If anybody should
say Nirvana is better if you are dead then I say:

 

When you are not dead yet it cannot be the same or as good as it would be
when you are dead. From this, it follows
that Nirvana is a delusion. Nirvana would
result in death if it were a real experience for final liberation should mean
the end of the body and its bondage.
When life is bad and escape from it into Nirvana is good then why not
kill yourself when you are enlightened?
Not killing yourself would accumulate bad karma and result in the loss
of Nirvana. It is true that Buddhism
regards suicide as a sin though some strands dont. But when Nirvana and deliverance from the
body are the meaning of life it follows that you should in principle at least,
kill yourself to obtain Nirvana. But
then if you really attain Nirvana you would not need to kill yourself.

 

Most Buddhism is not
atheistic but agnostic for it does not care if God exists or not and says he is
irrelevant if he does exist. Technically,
if there is a God he will seek a relationship with us for being good he will be
social so Buddhism would need to be atheistic for it teaches that seeking help
from God is wrong, you do it all on your own.
The miracles of Buddhism, incorrupt monks and healings would indicate
that there is no God!

 

Buddhism is a
million times superior to Christianity and God-believing religion. The very concept of God that he is perfect
good denies that he could possibly be irrelevant and affirms that it is vile
and pure wickedness to say that. We
conclude then that Godism must hate Buddha and Buddhism. God, is the idea that wants to crush the
nobility of Buddhist thought.

 

We admire Buddhism
for having no interest in God but still it is a wrong philosophy.

Top of the
Document

THE BODHISATTVA

 

In Mahayana
Buddhism, the concept of the Bodhisattva is very important. This is a person who is ready to enter
salvation but who postpones it in order to absorb or become other people who
are trying to get saved so that they can be saved with her or him. Buddhists dont believe that the person is
real and that many persons can seem to be different persons but be one
consciousness or force in reality and which is only learned in meditation. It is like barriers that keep the pieces of
awareness apart that are lifted so that they can merge to become one awareness
or realise they have been one awareness all along. The Bodhisattva is a saviour. He or she is almighty, all-merciful and
all-knowing (page 57, The Case Against God). They are open then to the same criticisms as
belief in the Christian God.

 

If the Bodhisattva
is heading for the gates of Nirvana then it must be a sin for him to stop and
think of others for he does not need to.
If he needed to, he would not be standing at the gates. It would be a very wrong action for him not
to sacrifice for others and this would bring bad karma on him and prevent
Nirvana. Because he has to be free from
bad karma and fit for salvation or Nirvana to be at them, the Bodhisattva
doctrine implies that it would be no sin if he went on and just put others out
of his mind. This attacks the fact that
morality is doing what is best. Buddhism
like Christianity is just a chain for slaves.
The experience of Nirvana must be delusional because one would need to
save the world before one could enjoy it and yet we have Buddhists who claim to
have enjoyed it.

 

The denial of
individuality and its being designated as an illusion mean that he must be
other people so by going in he will automatically save them for they are him
and he does not need to take his time.
He is harming them by trying to save them. It is only causing their salvation to be
delayed when he could redeem them faster by going ahead. The Bodhisattva doctrine is incoherent.

Top of the Document

WAS BUDDHA A SAINT?

Edward Conze who is
sympathetic to Buddhism testifies that it is impossible to make out the truth
about the original teachings of Buddhism (page 31-33, Buddhist Thought In
India
. It is difficult to sort out
the truth from the legends in the life of the founder of Buddhism. But the following information is probably
right.

 

Buddha did not like
women for they brought babies into the world keeping bad karma and suffering in
existence (page 225, The Worlds Religions). He must have known that men somehow caused
women to have babies so this was utter hypocrisy. He would not admit women into his order at
the start. He thought that his teaching
would last only half as long as it could if women joined up.

 

Buddha nearly
starved himself to death and spent many years inflicting cruelty on himself in
the hope of finding the way to liberation (page 224). He would have been troubled by hallucinations
a lot and would have known that his mind was powerful enough to fake the
experience of enlightenment. He was a
dogmatist and a fraud for declaring the experience to be proof that his
doctrine was true. Plus how could one
that abused himself and led others astray by a bad example possibly make it to
sainthood so soon after?

 

The Buddhas idea
that meditation helps you attain salvation better than good works would is
disturbing.

 

Nirvana changes the
way the mind works and thinks. It
removes pain and bestows peace. Do you
really want to feel at peace when you have a gnawing cancer to fight and you
need the aggression to survive? You
wont make much of an impact in a campaign for human rights with a heart full
of bliss. You wont want to do much for
them. Moreover, you know your body
exists but Buddha says you must put a blissful state that may cease at the
death of the body first. This is
illogical and does harm.

Top
of the Document

BUDDHISM IS PESSIMISTIC

Philosophers believe
in eternity or timelessness. This is a
state of being in which there is no change or movement from past to present to
future. The past and present and future
moments of time are all rolled into one and they are in a kind of now. In a chapter called Some Weaknesses in
Fundamental Buddhism in the book Christianity for the Tough-Minded we
read that Buddha rejected the view that there is anything that always stays the
same. So he rejected the eternal
timeless and therefore unchangeable God of the Hindus. Buddha held that A causes B and B causes C
and C causes D and D causes A so there is no point at which all things
began. Suffering always existed. To get freed from this vicious circle of
causality you have to break the links and you have to stop say C causing
D. Buddhism denies that you can love
your neighbour for himself for the self is something that should be destroyed
or swallowed up in Nirvana. It denies
the value of the person and your own value.

 

Christians dont
like the Buddhas view that there was no first cause. The Christians reply that the Christian
doctrine that God is the first cause or the originator of all things makes
sense and his doesnt. They say that God
must have been the first cause because its the only answer for the question of
why is there something rather than nothing.
But if God is the answer then we are left with the unanswerable
question, Why is there a God when there could have been nothing? We are no better off. It would be better to observe that the world
and ourselves exist and to ask why they exist.
To bring in another complication God only makes the question more
difficult for we have to account for him when it is hard enough to account for
the world and ourselves.

The circle implies
that you will have your present life all over again because when you get back
to A after D that is what is happening.
And why bother breaking the link when you are being replaced by a new
you every second? The you that had the
experience of Nirvana could be replaced by a you that does not. Why bother trying to save a future person who
will take your place? It is only luck
not effort that gives Nirvana because there is no person to make the effort. There is only a collection of things that
acts like it does make efforts.

Also when C might
cause Nirvana instead of D why work for Nirvana for it is only luck that gives
it to you anyway? Those destined to get
it might meditate and work for it but they were destined to get it in the first
place that way. Some monks reach the state
quicker than others. Zen promises the
experience is possible within minutes but only some manage it. Nevertheless the point is you might not have
to work for it.

 

Buddhists hold that
karma not luck determines when you will be enlightened. But why is it that nobody is enlightened by
doing good works but by meditating?
Meditation then is the only real good work. Helping others could not be really good
because it is like offering a beggar a penny when you could give him a
pound. It would be better to give him a
book on meditation instead. Good karma
would mean you will be more inclined to
meditating than anybody else but often this is not the case. Many people only come round to believing in
meditating late in life! The strange
attitude towards meditation indicates that enlightenment is unreal for to get
it you have to selfishly get wrapped up in meditating in preference to helping
others. So it is luck if you are
enlightened not karma. No matter what
kind of experience is promised at the end of meditation is the experience
real? Practitioners dont know if their
efforts will be worthwhile. Is it right
to have people doing all that possibly for nothing? Meditation is better than
good works and what Buddhism is doing is having people sacrificing life and
others for faith.

 

The thought that you
might meditate all your life and not reach enlightenment is fearful and itself
must produce bad karma and desire.

Buddhist morality
forbids killing even insects (page 295, Concise Guide to Todays Religions). We kill all the time. When we eat food the germs and bugs in the
food die in our stomachs. This morality
makes salvation impossible and it accuses those who claim to have been saved of
being liars.

 

The book, The Spirit of Buddhism, insists that
Buddhism is not pessimistic (page 35).
It alleges Buddhism says that life gets better and more peaceful the
more good works you do and the more meditation you do. The reason pessimism is bad is because it is
a closed hearted response to life. Its
making yourself and others suffer by your complaining and attitude. In the process you end up doing harm. The optimism of Buddhism is only
individualistic and spiritual optimism.
The Buddhist is so pessimistic about life and normality that he retreats
into himself to find happiness. That is
not true optimism and is even worse than pessimism. At least the obvious pessimist can change
when he or she has had enough of thinking badly of life all the time. The Buddhist pessimist cant. Anything that runs down real life be it
pessimism or a self-centred spirituality is not to be applauded.

Top
of the Document

DEMELLO AND BUDDHISM

The system taught by
the Jesuit priest, Anthony DeMello as evinced in his book, Awareness,
that you need to reduce your needs and have the sense that you need nobody to
be happy and that happiness is not thrills and not to expect other people to
treat you well is pragmatism and not spirituality though he disguises it as the
latter. One of the systems that led him
to work all this out was Buddhism. The
Buddha made meditation the indispensable element of his system and the fact
that there is no need for it just a change in attitude in the DeMello system
shows that Buddha was wrong. Meditation
is okay as a help to develop self-esteem but the Buddha made too much of
meditation and with the negative attitude the Buddha had towards personality
and personhood he would not have been in favour of developing self-esteem for
he wanted us to realize that individuality and personhood were illusions.

 

Self-esteem is the
cure for weakness and unhappiness. By a
simple change of attitude we can turn our lives around. But though it is simple it is not easy and is
hard work. The work is entailed not in
developing self-esteem but in getting rid of the things that stand in its way.

 

A Buddhist objected
to this by saying that when someones mother dies he cant accept it and renew
happiness just at the drop of a hat. De
Mello and myself have never said that a sudden change of attitude is all it
takes to cope with life. What we are
saying that it is a process and sometimes a long one. A change of attitude is all that is necessary
to turn life into bliss and it is simple but not easy. The change of attitude takes hard work and
comes to fruit gradually over time.
DeMello would have believed that his mother when she died went to a
better place and was still with him in spirit so his pain at her death would
not have been terrible. If he didnt he
would have seen his attitude as loving her enough to let her go for he couldnt
bring her back.

 

In Buddhism you use
the koans. One of them is trying to
imagine the sound of one hand clapping.
The aim is not to solve the contradiction for one hand cannot clap but
to break through the block in your mind that keeps you from perceiving the
state of nirvana or bliss. It is to stop
your thinking working normally so that it can see the ultimate truth and
experience the ecstasy it brings. You
have to get your mind up to another level.
Buddhists say there is no way to guarantee the experience will
happen. You could meditate for five
minutes with a koan and it will happen or it may take years of meditation. They think karma is the reason why this is
so.

 

DeMello disguised
his system as devotion to God but God is just an accessory in it for it is all
psychology and pragmatism and commonsense.
Spiritual is relating the laws of the hidden realm to the earth and this
is all about the earth and how to cope with it.
The system defends living without God and that is what the practitioner
of the system is doing no matter how much he says he loves God. Religions that do not teach the DeMello
system in its purity without his accoutrements should be sued for wasting
peoples time and negligence. You can do
that with hospitals so why not religions for mental health is the most
important health of all and more important than a hospital managing not to
bungle surgery.

 

This shows that most
of what is called Buddhism (eg Lamaism) with its magic spells and gods is
illegitimate. Buddha had a strange
experience that misled him so he was not the enlightened one.

DeMello would agree
that Buddhism when it rejects the soul or God that it has material type souls
and gods in mind not the spiritual soul or God of Christianity which is without
parts and which cannot be comprehended so it could or might indeed already
accept these two concepts but under different terms and ways of describing
them. But there is no need to assume
that for Buddhism is very abstract and paradoxical.

 

Top
of the Document

 

A CRITIC SPEAKS

 

The Catholic Truth
Society has published a booklet in the CTS Explanations Series called Buddhism
from a Catholic Perspective by Paul Williams who was a Buddhist who has
converted to Roman Catholicism. Williams
is a Professor of Indian and Tibetan Philosophy and was once president of the
UK Association for Buddhist Studies.

 

The booklet quotes
the Vatican II Document, Nostra Aetate,
with approval which states that the Roman Catholic Church rejects nothing of
what is true and holy in Buddhism.

 

Yet incredibly the
booklet stands by the Catholic teaching that only God matters and that Buddhism
is all about the mind and not about God (page 45). If God is of utmost importance as the Church
then how could there be any holiness in a religion that stands for not giving a
toss about him? To say the mind matters
and not God is to oppose God for Jesus said that whoever wasnt for Jesus was
against him so naturally whoever is not for God is against God.

 

The booklet rejects
the claim of some that despite Buddhism teaching that God doesnt matter even
if he exists though it thinks he doesnt that Buddhists believe in God but
dont know it. It says it is not
tolerance or broadmindedness to hold that somebody who is against your belief
believes the same thing but doesnt realise that.

 

Page 47 tells us
that God is not about what I need or want for God is God. It quotes CS Lewis who says that we must find
God because he finds us and that any other system means that what you adore is
an idol of God made to suit yourself.

 

The fact that those
who believers in a God unlike the Catholic God, such as the Mormon God who used
to be a normal man and evolved into a God, claim that God found them is
ignored. You would need to be able to
refute every variant religion and belief in God that differs from your own to
be able to claim with honesty that God found you and revealed himself to
you.

 

Page 49 says that as
far back as primitive Buddhism and following the attitude of the Buddha himself
the Buddhist religion has mocked God and the idea of a Creator.

 

Page 51 makes the
assertion that Buddhism doesnt believe in reincarnation in the sense that you
die and return again in another body at all.
You really cease to exist at death and what is reborn is an entirely
different person to the person who died.
Williams says that many Buddhist scholars say this and he thinks this is
the correct interpretation of Buddhism. He
says Buddhism denies life after death.

 

If this is true,
then Williams is right to say that Buddhism is refuted if this is their
doctrine. Why worry about your future
lives if you have none? Buddhism might
say that it is unselfish to worry for you are saving the persons you are
replaced with and that is why you should try to get enlightened and stop the
rebirth. Williams observes that if I
want to keep myself in existence and I can only do that by going into Nirvana
then I have to get enlightened in this life.
This is assuming that he is right to say that when you are enlightened
and you die you go into Nirvana or bliss that this is not suicide but a new
kind of existence. Many scholars believe
that Nirvana or peace is really like ceasing to exist as well. Williams argues that it means you lose your
body and desires and lose all that makes you a person except the awareness of
peace. That is all that is left. You still exist but you arent a person in
the normal sense any more.

 

Page 53 says that if
Buddhism is right that there is no perfectly good and loving Creator then the
world is not fundamentally good and neither are we. If so then there is nothing fundamentally
good about anything human. My
observation is that since Buddhism says that salvation or Nirvana can only be
gained by righteous people then it would seem that if the booklet is right then
salvation is impossible.

 

But we must remember
that you cant argue, It is best for the world and us to be fundamentally good
therefore there is a God. That is not
logical. It is best for us to believe
that the world and us is fundamentally good therefore there is a God to make it
fundamentally good, is not logical either.
In fact, we know we are fundamentally good without God because neither
of these arguments work.

 

Regarding Buddhism
taking the wish to end suffering as its starting point, page 54 says that for
Christianity that it is not suffering that is the problem but people not being
in harmony with what God wants them to do.
So in other words, religion and belief in God matter more than ending
human suffering. Christianity doesnt
see suffering as totally bad like Buddhists do. It says God lets people suffer
for a purpose so its not all bad and sometimes people should wish for it. This is the notorious Jesus doctrine that God
alone is to be cared about ultimately and in helping others the only real
motive is to please God. What it really
amounts to is, People have ideas about divinity that differ from mine and believe
them as strongly as I do. So my view of
God and the my perception of the evidence for him is really a belief and an
interpretation of mine. I want to
believe in a God who allows suffering to happen to make people holier or more
devoted to him. I want human suffering
excused in this way. Rather than hate
the suffering in the world I choose this belief that makes me condone it when
the God I believe in condones it or permits it to happen. If I could do it, I would do what my God does
and make them suffer instead of obliterating suffering. I refuse to believe that suffering shouldnt
be tolerated for I want to believe in a God that allows it. I am putting this God who I have no proof for
before people whose suffering I have proof for and I care not how unfair this
is. I choose to praise human suffering
in the sense that I choose to believe in a God who lets it happen who is worthy
only of praise. I know that if a tyrant
hurts the innocent those who say he does it for a good purpose known only to
him so that he is not a tyrant are evil for putting belief before people. That is what I am doing with God and I care
not.

 

If belief in God
comes before human suffering then this is unfair and this stance opposes
justice. Belief in God is fundamentally
evil.

 

If you put a belief
before suffering then it follows that you have no genuine concern for suffering
people at all. Loads of fake concern do
not an ounce of real concern make.

 

If ending suffering
is not of supreme importance and belief is then people arent worth very
much. It is more important to be free
from suffering than free from evil. Is
it not better to be alone in a world where you never suffer than to be in a
world where you are alone but with an evil heart? To deny this is to say that people were made
for morality and not morality for people.

 

If you are
enlightened, according to Buddhism, you cannot suffer. This implies then that Jesus Christ was not
enlightened when he was able to suffer on the cross (page 57).

 

The problem with Buddhist
compassion for the afflicted is that compassion means you suffer with the
sufferer for you dont want them to suffer and you suffer to help them which
means a Buddha or a person who is enlightened cannot experience any genuine
compassion at all for the suffering (page 63).
This would make Buddhism seem to be an evil faith that only tolerates
compassion until it is obliterated by the inability to suffer that takes place
when a living person obtains nirvana.

 

Conclusion

 

Just wish it were
all true!

 

Top
of the Document

BOOKS CONSULTED

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO
ASIAN RELIGIONS, E G Parrinder, SPCK, London,
1957

BUDDHISM AND
CHRISTIANITY, J Estlin Carpenter, Hodder & Stoughton, London (undated)

BUDDHISM FROM A
CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE, Paul M Williams, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2006

BUDDHIST SCRIPTURES, Translated by Edward Conze,
Penguin, London,
1980

BUDDHIST THOUGHT IN INDIA, Ann Arbor
Paperbacks, Michigan,
1962

CHRISTIANITY FOR THE
TOUGH-MINDED, John Warwick Montgomery Editor, Bethany Fellowship, Minnesota,
1973

CONCISE GUIDE TO
TODAYS RELIGIONS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1992

GREAT TREASURY OF
MERIT, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tharpa Publications, London, 1992

INTRODUCTION TO
BUDDHISM, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tharpa Publications, 1995

RELIGIONS OF JAPAN, H Byron Earhart, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1984

THE CASE AGAINST
GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984

THE SPIRIT OF
BUDDHISM, David Burnett, Monarch Books, London,
2003

THE WORLDS
RELIGIONS, Lion, Herts, 1982

UNIVERSAL
COMPASSION, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tharpa Publications, London 1993

WHAT THE BUDDHA
TAUGHT Walpola Sri Rahula, Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 2006 Truly the best explanation of
Buddhism possible


Evidence that Jesus was Mentally Ill

JESUS WAS INSANE

Even those who deny that Jesus
existed – and I am one of them – must agree that whether the gospels are true
or not they don’t give us any confidence in the sanity of Jesus Christ. Even if Jesus didn’t exist the gospels could
have been based on stories about eccentrics and fairly obscure prophets of the
time who did exist.

 

If we can prove that the Jesus
Christ in them was mad then that is all we need to destroy Christianity. It would mean that the apostles he chose and
the Church he founded were all very silly people indeed. It would mean that we have to be on guard
against any other religious movement because if Christianity was founded on the
ravings of a madman and was such a success any other religion could have been
the same.

 

We can be sure that there is
no evidence for Jesus’ sanity and plenty of evidence against it.

 

You will see plenty of
Christian books written in defence of the faith that deny that Jesus was mentally
ill and claim that he was the sanest person that ever lived.

 

It is possible that Jesus was
a manic-depressive. He said he was the
light of the world (John 9:5) and the only way to God (John 14:6) and the
unique Son of God (John 17). That is the
sign of severe mania. He was unnaturally
full of himself. The Church says he was
not being mad for it was the truth. But
that presupposes that Jesus was telling the truth. The information we have got on him is
selective so we cannot be sure of that. The declarations of Jesus
about the whole generation of his time being evil and sinful and nobody being
good is
indicative of the depression that follows the euphoria in manic
depression. Nobody can say Jesus was
telling the truth then about all people being evil and sinful for that is
nonsense. There is a lack of any real
wisdom in what Jesus said. We must also
remember that he had to get his teaching right some of the time because it was
stolen from other people anyway. Plus he
just gives the teaching and gives no convincing reasons why we should listen to
him which does not count for wisdom.
This makes any argument from his wisdom to be a waste of breath.

 

Jesus knew of the Old
Testament law of God which said that a prophet who makes any error in what he
says he was told by God proves that he is a fake even if everything else he
says is miraculously right (Deuteronomy 18).
Jesus knew the standard set by God.
Yet he made claims for himself beyond anything any Old Testament prophet
claimed and could make no fulfilled prophecy that was clearly fulfilled before
the event. By his own standard, there
was something wrong with him or he was evil.

 

Jesus used to hide away a lot
for long periods and it was allegedly to pray and he could have been severely
depressed during these times. Perhaps it
was to get away from the people a while for some peace and to prepare for his
mission to them again? But he went into
the desert for ages to starve himself and he even thought he saw the Devil
there!

 

Jesus going forward to the
cross when there were easier deaths shows that he was mad and suicidal and
extremely masochistic. The Christians
say he was not mad for he had to die for the sins of the world. Again this is assuming he was telling the
truth and was right without evidence because if anybody else made the same
claim as Jesus they would dismiss them as insane.

 

Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ interviewed a
psychologist, a Christian one of course, who claimed that Jesus was so sane he
was amazing. The psychologist was Gary R. Collins Ph.D. The book admitted that many people seem to be
paragons of sanity and are really quite crazy (page 145) and gave the example
of a mentally-ill woman who had killed her husband. Appearing normal and looking normal and acting
normal until her trial was in progress, she began to say the craziest
things. Evidently the trial brought that
out in her. Otherwise she would have
been fine. Some forms of insanity can
lead to a person keeping the crazy beliefs and delusions to themselves. Insanity can make one do that more easily
than it can get one to lift a knife to kill with. It was entirely possible that even the
apostles never knew, at least for sure, Jesus was insane and Jesus took his
secret with him to the grave. The psychologist
claimed that Jesus was saner than himself.
As we will soon see he was not wrong about that!

 

We are told that since Jesus
did not dress strangely, cried at the tomb of Lazarus his friend, was angry with justification,  had friendships with a varied spectrum of people, didn’t have
an over-inflated ego, cared deeply for people but was not neurotically addicted
to being compassionate and was able to accept people but not their sin he
passed all the tests for perfect sanity with flying colours. His emotions were as normal as could be. Nonsense.

 

We are not told how Jesus
dressed or anything about how he looked at all.  How could Collins know he had a
normal appearance? His living rough and
making bizarre demands would so that he was an unusual person and how he
dressed was not important. What was
important was how he behaved. And his
behaviour was undoubtedly eccentric. The
gospels saying that Jesus had no privacy even when he wanted it suggests he, in
fact, was dressing strangely. People
were able to recognise him very easily.
Considering the voluminous and drab clothes that were worn by everybody
in those days, it should have been easy to become unrecognisable. Jesus was so recognisable that he must have
looked a strange character! And dressing
in a bizarre fashion and then seeking anonymity is a sure sign of
insanity.

Collins, the gospel of John
which speaks of Jesus crying at the tomb does not say why he cried. When he planned to raise Lazarus up his
crying for Lazarus would indicate that he had mental difficulties. Insane people do cry at funerals.

 

Jesus said that a man who
looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his mind and therefore
sins (Matthew 5:28). He didn’t say
married woman. He meant that looking at
any woman with desire was a sin of adultery.
What he meant was, if you allow yourself to
desire to use a woman for sex, naturally you cannot care if she is married or
not so you are no better than an adulterer.
The Churches following his teaching hold that having wilful sexual desires
or sexual fantasies about someone you are not married to is
a sin.

 

This bans talking about sex
for talking about it means you will be having pictures of it in your
unconscious if not your conscious. There
is no such thing as talking about sex and not thinking about it. You may not even be aware of it. This clearly indicates that if Jesus lived
then he was mad for the consequences of not mentioning sex are horrendous as we
know from the huge numbers of children raped and molested by religious and
clergy and how not talking about it kept this going on for centuries.

Jesus went into an insane rage
in the Temple
and endangered his own life and that of other people and his friends for it
drove him to cause a riot. And we are
told by Collins to think that this was justified anger! Jesus went berserk for the workers in the Temple were making money
out of religion and acting dishonestly.
He knew about it before for he was in the Temple often enough. So why snap then?

 

The Sermon on the Mount was
spoken to simple people therefore there is no room for denying that Jesus meant
what he said literally. In this sermon,
Jesus forbade sexual desire, forbade standing up for yourself and your property
and commanded helping your enemy though this was helping them to oppress
you. If that is not mental impairment
what is? Fancy interpretations are
brought up to avoid the implications of Jesus’ teaching. It is a whitewashing job for we must obey the
rule that the simplest and plainest interpretation is the correct one.

 

Albert Schweitzer held that
Jesus was insane. His Jesus believed
that the kingdom of God, the overthrow of all the nations and the replacement
with God’s kingdom, was about to happen any day and when he was on the cross he
cried that God had forsaken him for he was dying and none of what he had
predicted had taken place.  His Jesus gave insane teachings believing
that it was foolish to bother trying to stop somebody thieving for the world was
about to end.

 

Jesus’ anger against the
Pharisees and the scribes in Matthew 23 was definitely over the top. Nothing in the gospels indicates that he only
meant the bad Pharisees. No differentiation
exists in the gospels. And as for Joseph
of Arimathea though he is said to have been a member of the Pharisees and a
secret disciple of Jesus it is not said he was a good disciple. Back to you Jesus. Why get mad at people who are only going to
get more stubborn the more you rant at them?
Jesus said after his alleged resurrection that those who believed and
were baptised would be saved while those who would not believe would be
condemned. Some disliking the view that
Jesus would send you to Hell just for your opinions maintain that he meant
belief in the sense that if you really believe in love you will love. But you can believe in love and not love and
there is no need or justification for that interpretation. Jesus can mean belief and had plenty of words
in his vocabulary if he needed them but he said belief so he means belief. This is evidence of anger without
justification too.

 

Jesus didn’t say we are to
respect our neighbour as ourselves but to love our neighbour as ourselves
meaning we must adore our neighbour as much as ourselves.  Respect our neighbour
as ourselves means we can treat a person properly despite having bad feelings
for them.  The Christians say that Jesus in commanding such love of neighbour
did not mean that we must be crazy about everybody but only that we must treat
them as we wish to be treated.  They lie for he said love not respect.  By
asking us to do the impossible and by threatening curses and Hell and eternal
torment on those who naturally fail, Jesus was putting us on an eternal
treadmill from which there would be no reprieve.  We would be unable to think we
can do anything right or to please him.  And once we start thinking that about
ourselves our relationships will rapidly break down.  Jesus tries to force us to
be good in an impossible way.  His example will drive us to force our gospels
and versions of them on others.  And if we can’t do it, that will not stop us
wanting to do it.

Jesus’ foundational attitude
towards the people around him were that they were either for him or against him
(Matthew 12:30). He said that whoever
was not for him was against him as if there could be no undecided
category. He said that often
enough. Such an uncompromising hostile
and divisive stance smacks of fanaticism and megalomania. It shows he could only have attracted people
who were not right in the head or who preferred fantasy to fact. And especially when the gospels say the Jews
sought to kill him for blasphemy and persecute him meaning the followers were
in danger too!

 

Jesus said many irrational things
such as that God saying he was the God of the deceased Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
meant that God was God of the living not the dead so that the dead were still
alive. There was no reason to take such
a bizarre interpretation of what God said.
God said it in the Law of Moses, in the Book of Exodus, and the Law
never gives any hint of an afterlife. It
promises only material blessings for obeying God.

 

We are not told that the
people he associated with were really close friends. Everybody has friends even when they are
crazy. He did not accept everybody. He told a woman that she and her suffering
daughter were dogs (Matthew 15:26) and to confirm it he only helped he after
she admitted it.

 

The claim that Jesus was not
ego-bloated is untrue. But the book
would answer that Jesus made great claims about himself just because they were
true and he backed them up with evidence.
The Case for Christ maintains that Jesus gave unique teachings,
worked miracles over nature and did healings to prove that he was who he said
he was. But the trouble with miracles is
that all believers are selective in what miracles they will believe in. For example, the Protestant regards the
miracles unique to Catholics as psychic fraud, trickery or the Devil’s work as
he schemes to keep people away from the truth and get people damned in Hell
with himself and his angels. The
Catholic Church only recognises miracles as from God if they fit its theology
and if they don’t the Church ignores them.
So this is doctoring the evidence.
Also the gospel miracles are not as well backed up as modern miracles
are. And miracles are so extraordinary
that one can be forgiven for not believing in them unless one sees them – an
attitude the apostle Thomas had. The
bigger and stranger the claim the more evidence is needed. Jesus’ miracles would be no help for we
cannot have commonsense and believe in them.

 

It is absolutely certain that
if Jesus claimed to be God or to be the greatest prophet ever that he was
insane. Why? Because he left no reason for us to believe
in his claims. The Christians argue that
he couldn’t have been insane for he backed up his claims with miracles. But Jesus himself claimed that the resurrection
was the only real sign. The Jews asked
him for a sign and he said he would give them none but the sign of Jonah (Luke
11:29,30). Some scholars think this sign
was the resurrection or just the message of repentance. Jonah seems to have risen from the dead after
being swallowed by a fish and he preached repentance. But the context demands we take sign to mean
miracle. So it was the
resurrection. Mark says there will be no
sign full stop (Mark 8:12). This means
that no evidence will be given for his resurrection and it must be believed by
faith alone. Christians say Mark was
referring to the same talk as in Luke and just summarised it so there is no
contradiction. There is. The words do not agree.

 

Another problem is that the
crucifixion could have been a hoax.
Another man could have taken Jesus’ place on the cross which would rule
out the resurrection being a sign. The
gospellers may say that Jesus died on the cross but that was only their
interpretation of events. They could
have been honest but wrong. Christian
faith is not based on the resurrection but on what men said. It is based on reports about something not
the something itself. Irrationally, the
men are considered to be right just because they made an interpretation for which
there is no evidence for.

 

For the resurrection to
succeed as a proof it needs to be something that only an honest God could
do. It is also curious that the
resurrection was not a resuscitation but a return from death that transmuted
Jesus into a totally transformed mode of existence meaning Jesus had to reveal
it in visions. The resurrection failed
to be proof for the proof he offered that the Devil and magicians couldn’t
duplicate was visions!

 

It is no less equally certain
that if Jesus did not claim to be God but to be the greatest man ever or the
supreme messenger of God he was still insane.
Strobel’s book tells us that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the
greatest man ever meaning he thought he himself was better than John for in
other places he claimed to be superior to John.
Jesus should have said nothing and let others decide. After all, if God was with him God could
influence them to see that so that Jesus wouldn’t need to say it. His saying it was therefore boasting.

  

Jesus was suffering from
neurotic compassion at times. We shall
see this from the following example.

 

Jesus Christ condemned wealth as sinful full stop. A rich young man came to Jesus and he told
Jesus he kept all the commandments.
Jesus said that there was one thing he lacked. What he lacked was his not giving away all
his wealth to the poor. The Church says
that Jesus was only recommending that the rich man become perfect by giving up
his wealth. He was not commanding him to
do it. The young man went away sad and
Jesus said that it was hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God
and it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. He said then that only with God could
salvation be possible for a rich man. Regarding this the Church says he only
means it is hard for a rich man not impossible.
But he said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God. The way he says it is so difficult and only
God can save the rich man suggests that the rich man must part with his wealth
to be able to enter the kingdom and only God can give him the strength to do
that. Also, if he was only making a
suggestion to the rich man why didn’t he call him back and explain that? He let him go away indicating that he didn’t
want this man to serve God with him for he wouldn’t give up the wealth.

 

Collins admits that the
opponents of Jesus felt that he was raving mad but says they were not
professionals and so they had no competence in judging Jesus’ sanity. He quotes John 10:20 for support saying that
the people were accusing Jesus of being mad because he claimed to be the good
shepherd. The critics of Jesus are being
said to have proved themselves to be too silly to rely on because they accused
Jesus of being mad just because he said he was the good shepherd. This would be tantamount to saying Johnie was
mad for claiming to be a good mechanic.
Collins is totally unfair and it is terrible that the ancestors of the
Jews have to be insulted to save Jesus.
That is insulting the Jews of today.
Why is he unfair? For Jesus was
not condemned because of his use of the good shepherd title at all. He was condemned because in John 10:19 he
said he would die and rise again. He was
making outrageous claims for himself.
Jesus himself said that miracles proved nothing (Matthew 7:22) and yet
he expected the Jews to believe he would die and rise again. Surely he would concede that if he could say
such things anybody could?

 

The Jewish rabbis and leaders
considered Jesus to be insane and we must remember that they were the
counsellors and psychologists of their day.
You don’t need to be a professional to judge
somebody insane and nobody can deny that we don’t have the right to accuse
these people of not intelligently and honestly believing that Jesus was
crackers. People with a good talent for
rational thinking and rational habits have as much right as psychiatrists to
judge somebody insane for insanity is in essence simply a failure to see or
like reality. So people who knew Jesus
and said he was mad are not to be listened to and Collins comes along twenty
centuries later reading a few books on Jesus has the right to say they were
wrong! Maybe they were but what right
has he to demand authority and knowledge of Jesus’ mind? Jesus own family
believed that he was mad (Mark 3:21) and they could hardly be accused of being
unfair to him for they were deeply ashamed of him which proves they really
sincerely believed he was mad. Also they
were so sure, they even brought scorn and stigma on themselves by admitting
they believed Jesus was mad to everyone.
They didn’t care for they were so sure.

The
Jews when they accused Jesus of being mad often meant he was demon possessed
(John 10:20). They were not saying he
was a madman foaming at the mouth. Jesus
was not that kind of madman. They were
saying he was very eccentric. Perhaps he
seemed normal most of the time. That
would make them feel he was possessed for nobody can see a demon and not all
possessions are necessarily gruesome and tormenting. Satan might possess a man to use him to lead
people away from the truth and ruin God’s plan.

Collins
declares Jesus sane just on the basis of four short books three of which used
largely the same material and repeated what each others said when you need more
than that. Collins needs help.

 

Collins says in the book that
there are some psychiatric patients who won’t respond to treatment and blames
demons for that. This was said to get
around the fact that nobody reasonable believes in possession these days and
yet Jesus performed tons of exorcisms of demons. But not getting better only means that
medicine is imperfect not that demons are involved. To tell mentally ill people that they even
might be possessed is downright criminal and cruel. You would be more terrified of evil
supernatural forces than you would be of natural ones for the former have more
freedom to do the evil they want. There
is no doubt that Jesus was guilty of great insensitivity and self-absorption
when he advanced the view that demons can take over and harm people. Collins needs to see that he himself is
guilty of this too.

 

Collins ignores the evidence
of paranoia in Jesus when Jesus said that the vast majority of people are
demon-possessed. Jesus told the Jews
that if Satan cast out Satan that his empire would collapse (Mark 3:24). Clearly then Satan couldn’t work without
possessing as many people as possible at least to some degree. Logically, most possessed people must just
act normal with nobody knowing the evil forces that are controlling them or
influencing them. Why couldn’t Satan put
a demon out and send it to somebody else when it suited him? That Jesus rejects the suggestion while
believing that the Devil was extremely powerful in the world indicates that
there was nobody else to possess! So
everybody in the world must be possessed.
He wasn’t sure of his own mental health when he had to believe that
everybody was possessed. He stated in
Matthew 12 that a demon can be exorcised and come back to take over the victim
with seven others when it finds nobody else to possess though the victim will
have got his life together and be a good person. When it can happen to a healthy and decent
person who came through a demonic attack far stronger there isn’t much hope for
the rest of us! And especially when the
demon that did the tormenting before comes back with seven friends! It is obviously better to put up with a demon
than to try and get rid of it. He said
that these visitations from demons would happen to the generation he was a part
of which he described as an “evil generation”.
He also stated that nobody was good or to be called good but God alone
(Mark 10:18) and indicated that he trusted nobody at all for he said that
people who go wrong in small things should not be trusted in greater (Luke
16:10). All this is a classic sign of
severe mental illness.

 

The fact that Jesus set his
feet on the way to the cross instead of hiding from the people who would put
him there, is evidence of suicidal tendencies.
The gospels make it plain that he refused to take any measures for his
own safety at that time. Jesus predicted
his death by violence and he didn’t need
to be a prophet to see it coming. The
gospels say he knew that he was going to be arrested and put to death and said
so hours before it happened. Today we
take it for granted that religious beliefs are no excuse for committing
suicide, for risking your own life or that of others and rightly so. Yet the crucifix is reverenced and so is
Jesus though they represent the right to walk into death if you believe that
God commands it. This is evil at worst
and insanity at best. No decent God
would make such demands, he has to understand that people are convinced of many
things that are wrong for many different reasons. When Jesus didn’t hide during his arrest he
was saying, “I believe that God wants me to die on a cross.” In other words, he was dying for his beliefs
rather than for God. It was totally
selfish and crazy.

 

Jesus was deliberately
provocative during his trial. The high
priest asked him what his teaching was and Jesus sarcastically replied that he
should go and ask his hearers (John 18).
The high priest was asking Jesus and it was a trial and Jesus knew he
couldn’t go and ask people. The rest of
the time he refused to answer and defend himself. He acted like he actually wanted to be
crucified. If Jesus had sex the Church
would be outraged and in denial. But
when Jesus refused to try and defend himself even if it was hopeless it’s a
virtue!

 

Despite the fact that his
disciples were living in a turbulent country and needed money to make a new
life somewhere else if war broke out Jesus demanded that they surrender all
their possessions. He said in Luke 14
that no king going to war sends his men out without making sure that they can
stand up to the enemy so in the same way nobody can be his disciple without
giving up all his possessions. In other
words, you have to go to war against what is around you to follow Christ. It is a spiritual war. Note the violent imagery: it shows that the battle is going to be just
as tough as real war. You have to give
up your possessions to prepare for the war so that you might win it. There can be no doubt that he is not just
referring to detachment from possessions here, having them but them not meaning
much or anything to you. He is saying
they must physically be abandoned to prepare for the battle. Detachment is what you are fighting for, it’s
the goal of the war so that you will be attached only to Jesus. You must painfully and agonisingly part with
everything so that you have a chance of really being detached for giving up
possessions does not mean you don’t love them any more. You give them up so that you can stop loving
them. That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is also saying that nearly the whole of
Christianity is a fake for they ignore his directions. He said that nobody is a disciple of his
unless he gives up everything. Jesus
said that he who was not for him was against him and you need to be a disciple
of his to enter the kingdom
of Heaven. Obviously then there is no salvation for
anybody who does not abandon all he has.
Jesus did ask his disciples to do that – they were called just to drop
everything and follow him. He told
Matthew just to leave his job and follow him for example. So all must be forsaken for Jesus
Christ. A wife can be more dangerous
than material things for all materialists are unhappy and it is easier to
prefer your wife to Jesus than your money so by implication Jesus is advocating
celibacy as well. This kind of morality
indicates an extreme fanaticism in Jesus, his followers and his fans. Like many fanatics they might have been able
to hide it well just like somebody acting normally doesn’t mean they are sane.

 

That people listen to Luke
being read in Church and then take religious leaders seriously is astonishing
for it makes it plain that the leaders only pick and choose what they like out
of Jesus’ teaching and then claim to be his honest representatives! The Christian theologian FF Bruce defends the
doctrine that Jesus forbade us to keep anything and wanted us to part with all
and give it to the poor in chapter 46 Sell what you have Hard Sayings, FF
Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983.

 

Assertiveness means you stand
up for your own rights without violating another person’s rights and expressing
your needs and desires and opinions in an honest and plain way. In Christianity, the only rights you have is
to be abandoned by God and sentenced to death by God and sent to Hell forever
when you die. Jesus said that when you
were struck on one cheek turn the other.
So you are not allowed to feel any aggression. To be assertive is a sin as well for he
didn’t say, “If anybody hits you on one cheek and you can’t get away, turn the
other cheek. Don’t say like an assertive
person would that you are going to report them to the law if they hit you
again.” He would have seen assertiveness
as sinfully affirming rights you don’t have and therefore as a form of
aggression.

 

There is no doubt that Jesus
would lose all his fans if they could see that the choice he left them was
between aggression and letting people walk all over you. He would want you to take the latter course
for he said to turn the other cheek. To
let people walk over you is worse than aggression so Jesus gave such bad advice
it might be evidence for insanity.

 

Jesus attracted people who as
far as rationality was concerned had problems.
Most people are weak at rationality especially when it comes to
religious claims they want to believe in and so they would devote themselves to
lunatics who seem relatively sane. Jesus
failed to attract people of great intellectual calibre, though he brought in
some who thought they had, which often happens when lunatics run a sect.

 

We read in Patricia Cornwell’s
Portrait of a Killer that the psychopath has an abnormal desire to be admired
(page 273). Each psychopath is
unique. He might strictly avoid certain
antisocial actions such as stealing or fighting and be a rapist (page 27). There could be any combination of good and
bad behaviour. Jesus could have been the
epitome of morality with the psychopathic disorder emerging in the form of him
claiming to be God or the Son of God or the Saviour. The moral image would have been necessary to
evoke trust in him so that he could indulge his behavioural disorder. Like all psychopaths, he would have been
incredibly cunning and would have faked love and compassion (page 29). The arrogance of those who say he is sinless
is compounded by the fact that only Jesus could know if he really was or
not. To believe in Jesus you have to
oppose the correctness of modern insights into mental illness. I always believed that Christianity was
anti-progress in its essence.

 

The same book argues that the
Ripper was an artist. And not just any
artist but Walter Sickert whose art is so violent that it is clear that he was
a psychopath. Theology is a form of
art. The Christian canvas has false
charm all over it like the paintings.
The violence is there and cries out for the destruction and eternal
torment of sinners and loathes babies who are not baptised and has a violent
Bible and a blood-drinking God. I could
go on for ages. The Christian faith has
the hallmarks of being created by psychopaths and if Jesus originated its theology
then he was the biggest psychopath of the lot.
It is futile for Christians to say that they do not want to believe in
these vile tenets but that they have to for they are true for if they wanted
rid of their faith they would be able to get rid of it and if and thought
enough they would not have to believe.
The evidence for the divine origin of the claims of Christ is so flimsy
that there is no denying that anybody who believes in Christianity wants to
believe. They may have been conditioned
but they still want to do it.

 

Jesus taught that we must love
the Lord our God with all our power and strength and that this was the greatest
commandment and that loving others and ourselves was secondary (Mark 12:30,
31). Let’s translate Jesus here: Belief
in God, trust in the authority of religion comes before the welfare of yourself
and your loved ones and even a helpless child.
It is really the theories and laws of religious leaders such as Jesus
that are being put first. If religious
authority is that binding who can complain when it commands evil having dressed
it up as good? Religion is a delusion
based on the failure or refusal to admit that to serve any god is to serve what
man has made. Nobody denies that most
religion is based on delusion so why can’t they admit that their own is no
better?

 

The concept of God itself
betrays the psychopathic mentality of those who embrace it. It signifies a disguised hatred of humanity
for God is given the right to take all from us including our lives meaning that
God alone matters and if others are to be helped it is for the sake of obeying
him and not for their good. God being
God does not need our devotion and it is totally frenzied madness to approve of
a being that kills and makes flesh-eating bugs for it is those who have needs
that come first. When Jesus claimed to
be the Son of God he confessed that he was a psychopath.

 

People joke that somebody is
touched in the head or mad but nobody jokes that somebody has cancer. There are many nasty names for people with
mental problems. Nutter, nutjob, looney
sicko, and so on. There are no
derogatory terms for people with physical illnesses. Why the antagonism towards people with mental
illness? People say it is because they
fear what a person with mental illness might do. But we know that mental illness relatively
rarely causes its victims to do harm. Others
say it is because people fear mental illness for they have no idea of what it
is like. They do not fear physically
sick people because they have a little idea of what they are going through. But this is hard to accept because people do
get depressed and think they are going mad.
It’s a universal thing. We do
have some idea of what it is like.
Religion, especially Christianity, has traditionally loathed mentally
ill people. It has suggested they may be
demonically possessed. And when they are
not they were suspected of being demonically obsessed. That means that demons are not possessing
them but meddling with their minds and causing their illness or they are just
taking advantage of an existing disorder.
The fear of demons was then projected onto the victims of mental
illness. The victims were seen as pawns
of evil. Accordingly they were feared
and inevitably hated. The belief in
demons has waned but centuries of hatred for the mentally ill has still left
its mark. As long as the Church promotes
the gospels it automatically seeks to revive that hatred. People still fear demons even though they
don’t deeply believe in them and the fear of demons still produces prejudice
against people with mental illness.

 

The Church cannot rule out demonic
obsession in any case of mental illness.
Clearly out of respect for the victims of mental illness, the concept of
demons and Jesus the exorcist need to go. This evil faith of Christendom
teaches that the sin of Judas and the Pharisees Jesus said were destined for
Hell for their sin was unforgivable was the sin of despair. That is a helpful doctrine for depressed
people I must say! It is bad enough to
suggest to people with psychotic tendencies that demons exist and can afflict
people but that shows that psychiatry should oppose religion. Despair is listed as a sin against the Holy
Spirit in the Catholic Catechism of Christian Doctrine.

 

The Christian system was
designed to produce psychopaths and neurotics. Gaze
at its
bloody history.  It has been very successful.

 

The gospels indeed have failed
to convince us that Jesus was sane.

 

Friday,
11 January 2008

 

THE
CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins/Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998

PORTRAIT OF A KILLER, Patricia
Cornwell, Little Brown, London,
2002

 

 

 

Top of the
Document