-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.5 May 2008

Ok, so some nutty morals got "stuck into" religion, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with bathwater, right? I mean, just because parts of the Bible have been corrupted over the years by some random chumping clerics, that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't the son of God, right?

Actually, wrong. For all the insanity in the Bible, by far the most extraordinary claim is that a man called Jesus was born of a virgin, was the son of an omnipotent God, and died on the cross only to come back to life and appear (rather mysteriously) to some of his followers a few days later. If you hadn't heard any of that before, and I just told you it happened, you wouldn't believe me. Why? Because it's clearly absolute fucking bollocks. And here you have a book, written God-Knows-When by God-Knows-Who, full of claptrap (by your own admission), and yet when it claims the Ultimate Claptrap you say "No! that bit of ridiculousness is true, the 'do not eat bats' rest was written by a monk in the fourteenth century!"

Even if you take the Christ (duh) story in isolation, and treat it as some sort of moral lesson, it still gets us nowhere. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that Christ (duh) died on the cross for our sins so that we may be forgiven and go to Heaven. Is it a good thing for an innocent man to heap all the injustice in the world on his own head, and pay for it via the medium of some obscene sacrifice? Does such an act absolve us in any way? Think about it. It's not justice: it's fourteenth century psychobabble.