First of all I'm not opposed, have no moral objection, to people who find comfort or similar benefits from their faith and who act towards others with decency, respect and inclusion.
Second, as to Christianity as such ─
I find human sacrifice a repulsive idea,
and I further find it incomprehensible that a god billed as benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient would sacrifice anyone to [him]self, let alone [his] own son
and I also find the ceremony of drinking human blood and eating human flesh in the eucharist repulsive and likewise incomprehesible.
I was once in a church just before Easter where the "seven stations of the cross" were represented by paintings around the walls, a sado-masochistic parade which was innately repulsive and in this case particularly repulsive because of the obvious relish of the painter.
I dislike the Christian notion of original sin and of telling (in particular) children that they're already guilty and booked for hell and therefore must toe God's line.
I object to the Christian claim that the Jews killed Christ. The gospels make it plain that Jesus' mission from the outset was to die, and that he refused numerous opportunities to escape and insisted on proceeding. It seems inescapable that Jesus' death was avoidable, therefore voluntary, therefore suicide.
I object to the idea that Jesus was a savior sent by the Jewish God. It's incomprehensible that the result of sending 'his own son' was and is two millennia of often murderous antisemitism, of which Hitler's death camps were simply a logical extension. By the time John was written, Christianity was its own religion, distinct from and opposed to Judaism.
I therefore reject the notion that the Tanakh is relevant to Christianity. It's plain as day that Jesus is nothing like the Jewish concept of a messiah, who is a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews and will bring them / recover for them their political independence. It is equally true that none of the purported prophecies of Jesus in the Tanakh can be recognized as valid ─ he was never in the mold of a Jewish messiah.
Nor is the Christian claim tenable that the Jews recognized Jesus as the messiah but wantonly and for their own secret purposes refused to say so ─ "rejected him". As I said, Jesus is entirely unrecognizable as a Jewish messiah.
It follows that Christianity would make a lot more sense if it had never claimed links with the Tanakh. For example, if you ever compare Paul's excuse for abandoning the covenant of circumcision with the relevant verses of the Tanakh, you'll see that his argument is untenable. It's a thin pretext ─ what Paul is really saying is that the requirement of circumcision gets in the way of sales (as no doubt it did).
It also seems silly to me that anyone would want to place Jesus as intermediary between themselves and their God, whom they'd always been at liberty to appeal to directly, though that's not strictly relevant in this context. The idea appears to come from Paul's gnosticism, where God is spirit pure and remote and would never sully [him]self by creating a mere material universe; hence in Paul and John (but not the others) Jesus creates the material universe (regardless of what Genesis says), and thus identifies as the gnostic demiurge.
There is of course more, but those seem to me to be the big ones.
Last edited:
