The Crucifixion of Jesus (A Sacrifice?)

I’ve heard it complained that Jesus getting crucified to atone for mankind’s sins wasn’t all that much of a sacrifice if he knew he was going to be resurrected and live forever. I can’t say I haven’t thought this myself because, well, it’s a good point. If Jesus was God, he was omniscient (or is, if he were actually God) and knew everything that was going to happen regarding his alleged sacrifice. While I’m not going to say getting nailed to a cross is the least traumatic thing you could put yourself through, do the pros outweigh the cons in this situation?

 

On one hand, Jesus is going to be humiliated by the Romans, beaten, flailed, and made to bear a large wooden cross prior to the crucifixion. Of course, after that he’s crucified and it takes him approximately six hours to ‘die’ (according to the Bible, from the third hour to the ninth hour). So, pretty gruesome. On the other side of that, given his resurrection, Jesus is going to live harmoniously forever after either serving as God or at God’s right hand (depending upon your theological interpretation). A few days of hell on earth vs. an eternity of heaven that also atones for mankind’s sins. Is that REALLY a sacrifice?

 

Let’s suppose there’s a donut between me and someone I don’t know. We both want the donut terribly bad – we’re hungry! – and the other person has done something terrible and doesn’t even deserve the donut. Then someone outside of our situation makes me an offer: I can have the donut and that’s that, or, give the other person the donut and starve to death. What’s more, if I give up the donut, after I die after weeks of starving, I will live forever and can have all the donuts I could ever want on a moments notice. Assuming the reward was guaranteed, I’m giving up the donut unless or until I consider the downside of living forever. And I’m guessing most people would give up the donut if some wonderful eternal life were a sure thing. After all, it seems most people give up the donut of rational thinking betting on an eternal afterlife and so accept Pascal’s Wager. But I digress…

 

Clearly, the long-term reward is greater than the short-term reward of enjoying the donut and living out my short life. The same is true of Jesus’ ‘sacrifice.’ Again, I’m not saying getting tortured and crucified isn’t going to be a traumatic experience, however, Jesus goes into it knowing full well the outcome. Jesus didn’t give up his life not knowing if it would do any good. By comparison, any man who signed up to fight in WWII not knowing if the Allies would be victorious against fascism and not actually knowing they would go to heaven if they died in combat are much more heroic and make a much larger sacrifice.

 

So, I can’t say I’m impressed with Jesus’ capitulating to himself (again, if he’s God which he says many times) to atone for mankind’s sins. Honestly, if I cared enough about people, I would do the same thing to save the world even without the promise of an eternal afterlife. That’s what heroes in stories do. Difference is, Jesus knew the outcome so I have a hard time saying what he did was even heroic. More likely, it was the ultimate result of the vanity of a man claiming to be a god. Make no mistake; Jesus even told his disciples they would end up joyous after his death, comparing his ‘sacrifice’ to child-birthing [man’spaining?] because he would return thereafter, so it was obvious to Jesus his agony would pale in comparison to the outcome. So, yet again, not a real sacrifice. A real sacrifice requires one gets nothing in return. Jesus got a lot in return. The pros far outweighed the cons.

 

…

 

I’ve searched in vain for a satisfactory response to this critique. Moreover, some have written, rather cheekily, that it makes no sense for God to sacrifice Himself to Himself to satiate a rule he made, that is, (eternal) death due to sin.

 

One defense typically comes in the form that Jesus and God are not strictly the same, though Jesus doesn’t make this distinction when referring to himself as God, nor is the ‘trinity’ doctrine appear in the Bible anywhere. Jesus, as a man, suffers mightily and that makes what he did extraordinary. That may be so, but I’m sure many, many people have suffered worse fates (which speaks to the horribleness of mankind.)

 

Another defense is that it’s not a rule God can change since the rule exist by virtue of God’s nature, but this defense only serves to defeat God’s alleged omnipotence and makes moral rules arbitrary: God’s rules are what they are because of his existence…which means we have no objective standard by which to judge God’s goodness. Whatever God says is good is good and we can’t question it.  Nor can we question the divine plan of God sacrificing (at least) a part of Himself to atone for mankind’s sins, a plan an omniscient and eternal God must’ve known literally forever. Did Jesus not understand the full weight of what he had to do until he was flesh on earth? That’s not an omniscient deity.

 

Defending Jesus’ crucifixion ultimately makes the whole story look less and less plausible so Apologists are better off just not saying anything about it. “But he died for your sins,” they will say. Sure, but really for a few days. Again, again, again, not a true sacrifice. He practically won the jackpot for his troubles.

 

Prelude to a Crucifixion (a short play)

 

God: (Calling down from Heaven) Jesus. Jesus my son, can you hear me?

Jesus: (Exasperated) God, stop calling me your son. I AM you. Or you in the flesh on Earth. Or part of a trinity. Or the Son of Man. Did we ever settle on any of this? I feel like this is going to confuse some people. Don’t you ever worry about all the different kinds of Christianity there’s going to be if we’re not very clear on what’s going to be written about us?

God: Wow, you need to settle down, boy. There are more important things to worry about right now, like taking away the sins of the world, giving the world Atonement. It’s part of the divine plan.

Jesus: So you’re saying flooding the world and killing all the sinners but Noah and his family didn’t get that sorted out? Oh, yeah, I already know this because I’m you.

God: What can I say? People can’t help but be sinners. I know since I created the circumstances that basically makes it impossible for them not to sin. That being the case, you know what I’m going to tell you to do, because it’s the only way.

Jesus: Is it really the only way? I mean, you know a crucifixion is going to hurt, right? Like, really, really bad. You’re telling me there’s no other way for an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity to save His creations from their miserable lives on earth? I feel like we could come up with something easier, or at least classier.

God: Don’t be a snowflake, boy. If it were easy, no one would think it was a sacrifice and be convinced to shower us with tithings. But look on the bright side; a few days of suffering and then you die only to rise from the dead – no small feat – and live happily forever after, literally. I think it’s more than a reasonable trade off.  

Jesus: Okay, just so we’re clear, a few days of excruciating pain for immeasurable happiness forever after; I guess it’s a little bit like a woman giving birth to a child. And, this takes away the sins of the world, although people are going to keep sinning after this and will need to accept me as their personal savior to avoid the fiery pit you…I…created out of love. (Goddamn pronouns…)

God: Yes, it’s so simple its genius. Sure, I could have never created Hell or evil or sin but what fun would that be? Oh, the kick I get out of seeing them struggle against temptation and face the worst life has to offer. All so that they’ll acknowledge me as their king.

Jesus: Careful, we don’t want to admit any vanity. We need to humble ourselves by allowing our own creations to torture me, sort of like what AI is going to do to social media users in the future. But still, when I’m resurrected, I’ll be a king! Ah, but again, just because we’re a king doesn’t mean we’re vain. No, sir, we’re humble. And if people don’t accept me as their savior – after I make this HUGE sacrifice – they will go to Hell for their disobedience to be tortured forever by someone else who disobeyed us. By the way, have you checked on Satan lately to make sure he’s doing his job? It seems counterintuitive that he’d torture people for doing the same thing he did.

God: Don’t get sidetracked, boy, and stick to the plan.

Jesus: Ugh, okay. As long as you’re…I’m…we’re…FUCK – as long it’s going to work and we’re not just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

God: I’m sorry, did you say something? I think the popcorn is done. Well, get on with it. I don’t have all day. Ha, ha, ha, actually I do. I’ve got forever.

Jesus: Okay then, don’t worry about me. I’ll just go collect some painkilling herbs. Don’t forget me when I’m on the cross!

God: (Picking up the phone) Mel Gibson! Hey, playa, it’s God! Listen, do you have a camera handy?

Jesus: First the dinosaurs, now me…(walks away) 

In the Beginning of Creationism vs Evolution

I’ve met an alarming number of creationists lately with whom – due to circumstances – I am unable to debate publicly. On one hand, I largely do not care what people believe as long as they’re not jerks or insist on foisting their beliefs on others. On the other hand, people are so unreasonable, it boggles reasonable minds and something must be said about their erroneous beliefs that they do want to foist upon others. Of course, the belief in creationism over evolution as an explanation for how life may have begun fits the bill.

While evolution doesn’t really explain how life began, people of many faiths and denominations of those faith take this to mean they should devise an explanation that is supernatural. What has long bothered me about creationism as an explanation for life’s origins is this – a believer, probably unknown to themselves because they do no critical analysis of their beliefs, is in essence saying that it is more likely that some divine being took a lump of clay and breathed life into said clay to create a man than molecules could spontaneously come together and at some point begin replicating themselves. The believer believes this despite ample evidence that the universe often displays self-organizing behavior; the formation of galactic clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets and the elements all of those things are made of to say nothing of the laws of physics that keeps everything stable enough for long enough in order for things to organize. Granted, this doesn’t speak directly to the origin of life, but indirectly speaking it seems plausible that a molecule – possibly RNA according to biologists current theories – might start copying itself or make other molecules due to natural chemical reactions and just might organize themselves into a larger system. As I said, the universe is not without a few examples, examples that are even prior to known life.

Moreover, the explanatory power of evolution is much greater than that of creationism whose powers of explanation do not go beyond the initiation of life. For the creationist who wishes to have their cake and eat it too, meaning they believe in creationism which is guided by evolution thereafter, they are merely shorting the process of evolution by one step. Why not just accept the first step as well or simply admit that one does not know how life began? Evolutionists – at least the ones who know what they’re talking about – will always say that the theory of evolution does not (yet) explain the origin of life, though from what they have inferred from the process thus far, it seems more likely that some molecule in prehistory began the evolution of life rather than submitting the explanation that an invisible and supposedly benevolent force made life simply pop into existence. In short, questions about the origin of life boils down to this: Is it more plausible that life suddenly popped into existence thanks to an invisible force that is sentient or that life began by some simple molecules organizing themselves? Maybe the answer depends upon how much one understands chemistry and biology, and maybe even physics.

As is always worth noting as well is that the very premise of life having a supernatural origin while the originator itself has no creator is completely nonsensical and arbitrary. If a creationist is going to be arbitrary in their beliefs or even claim evidence for their beliefs, why is it wrong for an evolutionist to be arbitrary in their beliefs or claim they have evidence for their beliefs? In actuality, both groups of ‘believers’ have life originating from non-life. Better to have something rather than nothing in common one supposes. Only, why something rather than nothing? 

Gun Ownership Questionnaire

Should you be allowed to own a gun? This short questionnaire will answer this pressing question.

1)    Do you believe in a deity?

2)    We know about Mohammed, but would Jesus have owned a gun?

3)    Are you a man?

4)    Do you think women should be subservient to men?

5)    Do you have an ex-girlfriend?

6)    If you’re a woman, has your husband ever cheated on you?

7)    Do you think abortion is murder?

8)    Do you think requiring classes before owning a gun is a ridiculous idea?

9)    Do you think society would be safer if everyone had a gun?

10) Do you think society would be safer if no one had a gun?

11)  Do you get road rage?

12)  Are you a mean drunk?

13)  Are you now or have you ever taken medication to control your moods?

14)  Do you take any illegal drugs besides marijuana (if marijuana is still illegal in your backwards state)?

15)  Do you drink Budweiser or Coors?

16)  Do you live in any southern or ‘red’ state?

17)  Is high school your highest level of education?

18)  Do you think the authors of the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had the vision to anticipate assault weapons?

19)  Does you think the “well-regulated militia” referred to in the 2^nd Amendment mean individuals who aren’t part of a militia should own a gun?

20)  Does the “well-regulated militia” referred to in the 2^nd Amendment mean you should be able to own a gun without training?

21)  Do you think President Obama is a Muslim?

22)  Do you pronounce ‘government’ ‘gun’mint’?

23)  Do you think the gub’mint is poisoning us with chemtrails?

24)  Do you think the gub’mint trying to mind control the U.S. population by adding fluoride to tap water?

25)  Do you own a gun for ‘protection’ and not because you just like guns?

If you’ve answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, congratulations! you should probably not own a gun because you have mental health issues. And that’s what this is really about; owning or not owning guns isn’t ‘Merica’s problem, it’s the fact that ‘Merica has some deep psychological problems. The mentally ill should not own guns. End of story.

The Absurdity of the Book of Genesis part II

[We continue our ‘cold reading’ of the Bible to see what we would gather from these scriptures if we knew nothing about God or Jesus or any of it before we ever picked up the book.]

Continuing on with Chapter 4 of the Bible, we read about Adam and Eve’s two sons, Cain and Abel. In this story we discover that Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of jealousy because Cain’s ritual offering is not as pleasing to God as is Abel’s. It seems reasonable then to conclude that God is vain in that God doesn’t refuse being worshiped. Second, we also see that a knowledge of good and evil do not prevent Cain from murdering his brother, making us wonder what is the point of knowing good from evil if knowing the difference makes no difference. See what I’m saying? Further in the story God asks Cain where his brother is to which Cain replies, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Until Abel’s blood calls out from the grave, God doesn’t know where Abel is – which is in contradiction to elsewhere in the Bible where it can be read that God is all-knowing. To be fair, God may have been giving Cain a chance to confess, but this is the second time God didn’t know something in the very first book of the Bible. If this is our starting point for determining if God is all-knowing, then we have to conclude that God is not. Anyway, God sends Cain away with a mark on his head as a warning to other people for them not to take vengeance upon Cain because…? Where these other people come from is not clear either since up to this point only four people have been named in Genesis. 

Moving on to Chapter 5 we read with a fair amount of skepticism that men routinely live in excess of 900 years. Chapter 6 verse 3 goes on to say that for no other reason than men being made of flesh, their numbers will be limited to 120 years. And, if we kept reading as far as the Book of Psalms, we’d read that the days of a man will be limited to 70 years. Will someone please make up their mind! It doesn’t matter; plenty of Biblical characters tend to exceed these limits immediately following their announcements. So, whatever.

Immediately thereafter we get these two verses in succession; “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” and suddenly we have a god who regrets having made man. First there are ‘men of renown’ then God regrets making them? Uh, okay. I think a lot of story got left out here. God goes on to lament making man and beast and announces to Noah that he will destroy it all. Right here we learn once again of a god that makes mistakes; God is fallible. Certainly I can’t be the only one who expects a god not to make mistakes.

The rest of Chapter 6 and 7 give of Noah’s tale of the Arc which is not without some minor absurdities. A 450 foot long boat that houses two of every animal on Earth? Sure. All those animals boarding the Arc in one day? Naturally. A worldwide flood that lasts 40 days while just a few verses later the flood lasted 150 days? WHO EDITED THIS THING?

By the way, do you like the scent of burning animals? No? God sure does. At the end of Chapter 8 Noah makes a sacrificial offering that is so pleasing to God’s nose that God regrets flooding the Earth. If we recall, this is now the THIRD time God has regretted a decision…in the very first book of the Bible! What does this guy do for an encore?

In Chapter 9 there are some very strange family affairs afoot. Noah, previously described in the Bible as a righteous man “Drank of the wine and was drunken, and he was uncovered in his tent” (read: naked). God’s #1 guy is a drunkard. Anyhoot, Noah’s son Ham sees his father naked, tells his brothers, and they all go to cover dad up being careful not to look. (Remember, being naked is a big no-no to God, which is why he didn’t cover Adam and Eve up. Wait, what?) When Noah wakes up he is outraged that he was seen naked and sentences Ham’s son to a life of servitude. What a douchebag! The Bible seems to have a bizarre code of justice I am sure we are all glad we no longer live by. Please also note that at the end of Chapter 9, Noah dies at the age of 950. Wtf?

Skipping ahead to Chapter 11 is the story of the Tower of Babel. In this story, God is worried that mankind may become capable of too much as men attempt to build a tower to reach the heavens. Well, God can’t have that! To thwart mankind, God confuses the language among men and spreads men around the globe in an effort to keep them from working together. This appears to us as if a parent were intentionally trying to undermine the achievements of their own children so that the child could never be as accomplished as the parent. I doubt many of us know someone who parents their children in this manner. If we didn’t already, we probably starting to not like this god.

Believe it or not, the Book of Genesis gets more outrageous. Chapter 12 brings us the story of Abram, a man God is sending off into the world and upon whom God will bestow a great nation, for absolutely no friggin’ reason we’re privy to. In his travels, Abram enters Egypt and lies to the locals that his wife is instead his sister. Abram fears he would be killed by the Egyptians because his wife is so beautiful they would want her for themselves.  It winds up that Abrams wife is taken away from him to the Pharaoh’s court for said reason with Pharaoh compensating Abram with sheep, oxen, camels and servants as any fair man would do. Unfortunately, God takes Abram’s side in this deception and rains down fire and brimstone upon Pharaoh’s house. Of course, Pharaoh didn’t know Sarai was Abrams wife, but so what? Why wouldn’t God side with the liar? Pharaoh finally learns of Abram’s deception and promptly sends him and his wife away least things get any worse. The moral of the story? THERE IS NONE! Where do you see morality anywhere in this tale? Dare we read any further?

In Chapter 17 God changes Abram’s name to Abraham and establishes a certain painful covenant, again for reasons we are not privy to. This reminds me of being in the army where everyone is expected to follow commands without thinking. But, since that didn’t work out for Nazi’s Nazi war criminals, I don’t see why anyone ever follows commands blindly. Anyway, in Chapter 18-19 we witness the story and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities whose evils are so offensive to God that we never lean exactly what those evils are so we can avoid them ourselves. What we do learn from this tale is that offering up your daughters to an angry mob to save the lives of some angels (who are suspiciously mortal) is not offensive to God, yet another indicator of the level of respect God has for females.

In Chapter 22 God tests Abraham’s faith by asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son to God. Abraham prepares to do so only to have God say “Just kidding!” at the last second. Again we learn we are not supposed to question God no matter what this jackass says and we’ll be rewarded (with oxen or some such). I think, though, that this is a particularly cruel way to test someone faith, don’t you?

Now, folks, I am not going to even mention the fable in which another of God’s chosen dudes (it’s never a chick) blackmails his brother out of his birthright; blackmail obviously not being a crime. Nor will I mention the rape of Dinah in Chapter 34 in which God allows the destruction and death of everyone in an entire city as retribution for one man’s crime.

So, having read the first book of the Bible, what can we surmise? From beginning to end we are privy to a deity who is thoughtless, careless, confused, jealous, vain and savage. But it seems we are supposed to worship God simply because God (along with a few pals) created us. Nevermind that there are no arguments in Genesis that indicate why a creature should honor its creator. God also has a strong bias against women; few women are named in Genesis yet even the most trivial male is given a shout out. Thus, being a reasonable and conscionable person, I cannot take this God seriously. That is, I couldn’t possible respect this God even if it did exist and did create human beings. (There is no evidence that God exists, simply a book that says so. Meaning, I guess Sherlock Holmes actually exists, too, if we’re all supposed to simply take the word of some book.)

Sure, by all means keep reading the Bible if entertainment is your goal. There is even more batshit crazy stuff beyond the Book of Genesis. Volumes of it! Just remember to read it all objectively. You’ll shake your head in condemnation with every turn of the page.

Hypocritical Mass

In May of 2003 William Bennett, then the right-wing poster boy for virtues, was discovered to be a big time gambler. The trouble wasn’t so much that he’d lost a boatload of money (estimated to be about five million dollars) but that he was caught participating in what many religious conservatives consider a vice. Bennett tried to shrug off his addiction by saying his particular brand of faith didn’t really discourage gambling, but then went on to say that he’d never gamble again anyway. Mmm, okay.

Fortunately for Bennett, that story broke in the middle of particularly terrifying Midwest weather, the global threat of SARS, and Jay Leno and Katie Couric switching jobs for a day. Before long, the new Slick Willy was able to return to being a chubby spokes model for virtues and spewing forth more volumes of biblically confused morality. Bennett is lucky that Americans are as forgetful as they are apathetic. Perhaps people like William count on it. 

Why do religious leaders seem to suffer the most from extreme hypocrisy? It may be that they are more closely scrutinized than the Average Joe, but that is as it should be. Having been in the military I am strong believer in leading by example. I do not look up to people who do not set a good example. Yet these are the religious leaders we’ve been putting up with over the years…

Jesse Jackson was revealed to have sired a love child and allegedly embezzled money from his own Rainbow Coalition; Jim Baker commits adultery with Jessica Hahn; Franklin Graham calls Islam a “wicked and evil religion” while ignoring Christian history. Pat Robertson blames homosexuals for the September 11^th attacks, as if that was the one thing that really riled up the terrorists. Then there’s Osama bin Laden, who used Islamic fundamentalism to inspire incredible homicidal and suicidal violence while he completely ignored the opportunity to be a spectacular symbol of martyrdom himself. What a chicken-shit. By the way, when are priests going to stop abusing little children? Only when we’re looking? Currently, there’s no scandal involving that slick son-of-a-gun Joel Osteen, but you just know it’s coming.

Why is it that the people who would have you and I believe they know the path to God better than we do behave so poorly? The origin of the moral hypocrisy of the pious may have something to do with the fact that such people are held to impossibly high standards, which is the logical consequence when one picks their faith. But I think this is strange because I consider it amazing that people cling to religion in an attempt to curb themselves of the very behavior that makes them human in the first place. Have we not learned as a species that repressing our nature perverts our nature until we have no choice to but to be hypocrites? You know, religious rules should be rejoined with a disclaimer that cautions, “Guidelines Only.” I mean, trying not to scream “Oh God!” when you climax really is impossible. Granted, we don’t want people to get too violent. It must be considered though that something like violence is a part of our human nature and its okay when released in a socially acceptable manner, like rampaging your local downtown district whether or not your team wins the Super Bowl.

What makes these scandals worse? In my opinion that would be forgiveness. Perhaps it is believed that everyone makes mistakes. Yet the mistakes of these particular leaders are all too common and have caused the public to become jaded to the point that some kind of deception is completely expected as if these religious leaders were politicians (refer back to my Joel Osteen line earlier). Oddly, since monotheists in particular like to believe that God doesn’t like sinners and lying is a sin, you’d think that religious leaders caught lying or behaving poorly, thus potentially leading their flock astray, would be more severely punished by their parishioners than the average church denizen. Believe it or not though, they are actually the ones most easily forgiven by the public, never mind that these supposed leaders are the ones who are allegedly pied-piping us to heaven. What the hell? For the believer, enabling their liars will get them exactly what they deserve, which is nothing. When religious leaders fail, it is revealed just how much stock they have invested in their beliefs. Observe how often they say they will reform only after being caught red-handed.

These theocratic representatives alone however are not entirely to blame. It seems to me that the hypocrisy arises from both sides of the playing field. The people we call upon to be our leaders are characteristically of low moral fiber in part because it’s largely recognized that assholes are the only ones insecure enough to put forth the drive and determination required to lord power over others. Everyone knows it takes two to tango, and somebody has got to be the bitch. Saying a politician or priest speaks for you therefore practically makes you an accomplice to all sorts of ghastly behavior.

This also seems to be why no one is willing to be outraged (or be outraged by a lack of outrage). Most people point-blank refuse to criticize those whom they have elected. It’s an admission of guilt or at least of being an accessory. Cripes, canning the boss or your representative would mean one of us other low-lifes taking time out of their busy schedule to be an effective and true leader. Save the world? I’m free on Tuesday I guess, after my massage. Leaders rely on exactly this kind of attitude to remain in power. Then they become prone to thinking that they can get away with just about anything. For the most part I’m sure they do, because the public lets them. Sheep don’t tell wolves what to do.

I’m not going to say that I’ve never said one thing and then done the opposite. It’s just that us decent folk don’t go around doing it all the time in a conscious effort to make a mockery of the beliefs we profess. I’m not shoving beliefs I do not really believe down other people’s throats. When I make a mistake I am man enough to admit it. (It just never happens.) Religious leaders on the other hand might be better off pointing out their flaws to begin with so that their flocks will avoid any letdown (and an inevitable look-the-other-way). It’s like a “Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” card played in advance. This would greatly help congregations identify with their leaders. Hmm, but I wonder how many leaders don’t want to be identified with their followers. Ah, now we see what they think of us.

Just how badly are religious leaders needed anyway? We might recall that Jesus told his followers that the kingdom of God was inside of them. But then he also said to his disciples that they would not taste death before seeing heaven on Earth. Did he lie? Even in his last moment Jesus seemed to question his father whom it appeared had forsaken him. When the chips were down, it appeared as if the Son of Man didn’t believe in God or at least couldn’t believe he’d been abandoned to such a terrible fate. Do you think a parent who loved you would willingly allow you to be tortured to death? Holy hand-grenades, the origin of hypocrisy is right there in the Bible!

There’s a lesson to learn here and that lesson is you can’t really trust anyone but yourself to lead yourself, especially when it comes to faith. Sucks, I know. This has been another disappointing message brought to you by Religion, the proud sponsor of Fooled You.