Mr Saunders is doing what Mr Lloyd did. He is ignoring what is on this website. The simple outlook of the website is that Christians are liars and obfuscators and it gives page upon page of evidence that it is true. When there are megabytes of evidence presented for the reader to consider, it is fatuous to say there is none, as these Christians do. That immediately proves they are liars. Christians cannot argue against this, so they simply deny it. That too is to lie.




Saunders knows he is being dishonest when he uses his football scores analogy. That is why he has to admit that he might seem to be flippant. To call someone a liar does not mean that they lie in every sentence. Christians lie about Christianity and that is what these pages are about.




When Saunders says that God loves liars and ex-liars, he again proves he is a liar. How does he know what God loves? He even knows that God's love can be qualified, so that He loves ex-liars more than those who are still lying. People who think they know what God likes or loves are frankly deranged. That is another historic danger of these insane patriarchal religions. It is easy to see why Saunders thinks God loves liars. The religion was invented to appeal to the dross of Roman society. That is where the lie arose that God loves sinners. Even the gospels are utterly plain in declaring that sinners have to repent to earn God's love and therefore admission into His kingdom. Sincere repentance is permanent repentance, and Jesus is as clear as possible that even after repenting, the least stumble by the former sinner will slam the doors to the kingdom. An opportunist called Paul might have dissented from this, but Christians ought to put all their emphasis on the word of God not one of his agents, surely. That they do not is another way of lying.




It would be useful for Christians to look up the meaning of truth in the dictionary. It is "according to fact, veracity, something real and actual, a fact, reality, actuality, what is right or correct, correctness, righteousness, accuracy, exactness, something proved to be always the case, godliness." Plainly, the definition of godliness has been added to all the worldly practical definitions on the Christian assumption that God is truthful. If there is a God, He would be a poor sort of God if He were not, but no Christian has any proof that He is truthful. They assume it. It is part of their concept of God, and nothing more. If all the promises of God's Word, the bible, were to go by, God is not truthful in practice, but that is because the bible was written by Jews and Christians and not by God. Saunders might care to debate about the truth, but he had better begin by telling us which of these definitions he will accept.




Saunders' evidence is his own personal experience, and he calls that fact and data. It is not, it is delusion, and needs treating by psychiatrists not by parsons. It is this sort of confusion that shows that Christians simply cannot distinguish truth from falseness. They place no importance on the real world, but only on their own emotional states.




Saunders feels it necessary to defend ministers of the church who "act as counsellors to those in pain, organise youth clubs, social events, events for the elderly, visiting hospital patients and the house-bound." There are professional people who do all of these things, showing that the church leaders are desperately trying to find something useful to do. It makes my point that they are not douing anything useful as ministers.




If, as Saunders tries to argue, these clergymen have useful skills and strengths, then they should find a job that can make use of them professionally, and not in the amateur way they do. Parsons and priests do what they do because they cannot do anything else, and have no scruples about robbing widows of their mites, as the Christian God put it.




Christians like to project their own failings on to others, so he calls me unreliable but the arguments are given in detail with a comprehensive bibliography, so I am confident that readers have the evidence to judge, if they want to. Christians will have made up their minds anyway.




Relationship with God is personal, Saunders tells us. Ministers of the churches are therefore not needed. Saunders is admitting that they are doing nothing and can be dispensed with. The minister is a third party, ministers do charge, they are paid, and they still make sure a chalice is passed around for donations to pay them. Are they paid for a sing-song and mumbo-jumbo ceremony, to echo Saunders' words? Whatever they are paid for, I reiterate, it is nothing useful.




As for praying, my prayer is that the patriarchal God will go back whence he came and left us to concentrate on the only world we shall ever know -- the world Christians care nothing about because they consider it merely an evil tribulation to be endured until they die. Mike

Email