Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Atheists Concerned for America: The Real Moses and Paul



Believe it or not, I was arguably the most devout, God-fearing student in my class at St. Mary Magdalene Catholic School. Here at school was where I earnestly learned how to be a "righteous" Christian. Moses and St. Paul were described by the Nuns as wonderful heroes that centrally established the Christian doctrine supposedly alongside Jesus. It's of course reasonable to presume that Jesus was the principle source of Christianity's doctrinal substance, but regardless that is a misleading and inaccurate statement. See, the words of Jesus alone were inconvenient for Constantine (the Roman emperor that gained power around 312 AD and converted to Christianity), who wanted to restrengthen the state using Christianity. Thus, in the year 325 AD The Council of Nicaea - comprising strictly the men in on Constantine's political conspiracy - consolidated a Christian Bible, making sure it was INEXPLICABLY dominated by Moses' and Paul's teachings. (For more information on The Council of Nicaea, see my college paper on it for my Medieval Humanities class here.) The problem I have with their "method" is that much of what Moses and Paul said isn't only immoral— it contradicts Jesus, too! If I sound overly-inflammatory now, believe me, you have no idea. I hope all of you, Christians and nonbelievers alike, are prepared for a TRUTHFUL assessment of these men, because their intense, shocking natures will henceforth bring new meaning to 'inflammatory':

"Exposing Christianity's Founders: the Little-Known Evils of Moses and Paul"

By Jordan "BluntJoey" Adorno

Moses, the founder of Judaism and the writer of the Torah (Jews' name for the first five books of the Bible; referred to as the 'Pentateuch' in Christianity, however), is the most important character in the Old Testament. St. Paul, who executed Christians before claiming to be the leading messenger for Christ, wrote 14 of the New Testament's 27 books. However, who in truth were these men? To what extent are these men credible? Have the many variations of Judaism and Christianity voiced an accurate and objective portrayal of these Biblical forerunners? And by what means necessary? How much history validates them? Believe me, under the presumption that the Bible is the word of God, it is curious how much shock unravels once one begins delving into the (often) cryptic depths of the Christian doctrine. Thus, my evaluation of Moses, firstly, fair and objective, derives solely from his own Biblical testimonies, as follows:

To begin, Moses is not only the accepted writer of The Pentateuch (again, the Torah in Judaic terms), he is its biggest protagonist: As an infant, Moses is adopted by the Royal Egyptian family, whom he eventually becomes the mightiest antagonist toward. Understandably, Moses feels forlorn upon discovering his actual Hebrew descent because his own family enslaves the Hebrews, the people whom he originated from (biologically that is)! Moses, then a young man unaccustomed outside palace doors, nonetheless MURDERS a slave-owner and exiles himself to the desert (Exodus 2: 11-12). Later, however, under God's command directly, Moses returns and frees the enslaved Jews, His specified 'Chosen People'.

Specifically, however, the liberation (hence ‘exodus’) of the Hebrews is achieved after God ravishes seven inconceivable plagues over Egypt. Importantly, God hardens Pharaoh's unwilling heart, making him LESS and LESS amenable to freeing the slaves with each catastrophe (Exodus 9:12)! God clearly wanted Phaorah to defy him so that he could continue casting disasters upon the Egyptian people! But then, when God finally kills Pharaoh's son in His slaying of all the first-born Egyptian sons, the final plague (and the foundation for the Jewish holiday of Passover; hence the Hebrews were 'passed over', their sons unharmed), Moses first succeeds in freeing the Jews (Exodus 11:5). Climatically, however, when Pharaoh unexpectedly strikes back last minute, chasing Moses down with the beleaguer of chariots, Moses incredibly saves his people from an apparent dead-ending doom by splitting the Red Sea. Moses and his people then walk through the sea miraculously, but when Pharaoh tries following it falls back into place (Exodus 14: 27-28). Later, while his refugees shelter nearby safely, solitary Moses ventures up Mount Sinai, where God gives Moses the famous Ten Commandments (although Jews will often say they were but "ten utterances") with the expectation that he will uphold them amongst his people (Exodus 20-22). This autobiographical recollection is obviously beyond bizarre, even opposed to some of Moses' follow-up testimonies, which are horrendously beyond immoral instead.

Nevertheless, common knowledge ends here at Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments. The Book of Genesis (the alleged story of creation and early human civilization) and the consecutive Book of Exodus (the start of Moses' story) are very prevalent in Christian and Jewish sermons alike, given the monumental Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1-17). However, any additional information on Moses would most likely be read personally by the most devout. The question of why is reasonable with the chronology, given that he is not only the accredited writer of the Pentateuch, but whom also is the central character of interest in four out of the five. (Genesis, though alleged to be written by Moses, supposedly "retells" the universe's creation and the beginning of human civilization; hence he thereby is obviously absent.) Nonetheless, disregarding the numerous laws of God and the journeys of his "chosen people" seems unprecedented considering Moses' fame (or, as you will soon learn, arguably infamy). Exodus, featuring scenarios summed above, can be argued the most important, but even so, it still remains curious that the Pentateuch has three consecutive books, those which are unheard of almost. Why do Christians spite their hero thereafter? Why is the bulk of the Pentateuch - his self-written, God-directed testimonies - so highly neglected by Churches?

Well, once one reads Moses’ complete incendiary story, it appears obvious why Christian leaders have drawn far less attention to the rest of his writings: centrally, it is illuminating how, despite that Exodus features Moses directly receiving the Ten Commandments, he apparently exempted himself from following them. Murder and adultery are two commandments, for instance, that Moses himself commits repeatedly even as God’s chosen leader. For example, The Book of Numbers features rampant sexism as ordered by Moses and many others, often variations alike the following scriptural examples: Moses is the stem partially of the great sexism today, because in a count of those fit for an untamed war, he completely discounts women (Numbers 1:2), whose physical capabilities could only have been far more present in ancient times like this. Far more sickeningly, Moses instructed his men to eliminate the Midianite Tribe (every single man, woman, child, elderly and disabled persons etc.), save of course the tribe's maidens, because Moses always prized virgins for raping (Numbers 31: 14-18)! Similarly, Moses and his men terribly rape more virgins after murdering masses in Deuteronomy; unconscionably, this was 'justified' under God’s own pretext, remarkably which instructed, "When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies" (Deuteronomy 20: 13-15). Furthermore, Moses encourages his men, in speaking of their war captives, to selectively find a suitable woman and "go unto her" (Deuteronomy 21:11-14). Additionally, in the Book of Exodus Moses allows men to sell their daughters as sex slaves, (Exodus 21:7), which seems ridiculous as he had saved his people from that very atrocity! Incredibly, The Book of Leviticus is beyond sexist in stating that just approaching a woman who is menstruating is terrible (Leviticus 18:19). As sickening and unbelievable as it sounds, it only grows further apparent why preachers, who exhort that the Bible is the unaltered word of God, are reluctant to publicize past the Ten Commandments. See, Moses didn't just limit his cruelty to women. He's responsible for numerous inhumanities, such as making execution for disrespectful children the law of the land (Leviticus 26:22). Moses also demanded a variety of strange sacrifices, mainly of animals, and the punishment for not doing so was most severe ( Leviticus 17: 5-7; Exodus 12: 1-28); but, even more sickeningly, the sacrifices sometimes extended to both animals AND humans, too (Leviticus 27: 28-29)! Still sound like the all-righteous hero who we are taught he is?

Next, the "science" in the Book of Genesis should be addressed vigilantly despite Moses' absence. If it is the word of God, it would be no less fallible. Genesis depicts the "beginning" of the universe and of humanity, arguably the most famous Bible story, and if Moses really was divinely intervened to record it, the science would be accurate. Notwithstanding, Genesis' devastating inaccuracies are easy to disprove: according to Genesis, God creates the world in a mere six days. With its pseudo-scientific claim that the world’s only 4000 years old (Genesis 1), the Bible strongly contradicts the Earth's real exponential chronology! Any rational human being knows this is impossible for a multitude of reasons. In light of this, some Christians try to reconcile this as symbolic to evolution, but firstly it's proven that the Bible's creation sequence is completely incongruous with irrefutable scientific facts; and secondly, if Genesis, hypothetically speaking, was even somewhat consistent - enough that representing each "day" as a fixed gap in time would be acceptable, let's say - it still would invalidate itself regardless. And why, one commonly asks? Well, first and foremost, God never states any reinterpretations are suitable, much less permitted. Henry Morris, a Christian Theologian, explains most compellingly in The Bible Has the Answers why he agreeably would invalidate any such metaphor: "The Hebrew word for ‘day’ is ‘yom’ and this word can occasionally be used to mean an indefinite period of time, if the content warrants. In the overwhelming preponderance of its occurrences in the O.T., however, it means a literal day… Still further, the plural form of the word (Hebrew 'yamim') is used over 700 times in the O.T. and always, without exception, refers to literal days"(Morris 94). Besides, in addition to this expert's in-depth, bombshell analysis, the Bible's constant discouragement of intellectual open-mindedness - of which would obviously in theory be necessary in reinterpreting Genesis - remarkably thwarts said Christians' idealistic, modern approach to the Bible's creation story anyway! No, if the Bible is truly inerrant these problematic inconsistencies would not exist in the first place - plain and simple. All of this should therefore be reaching you at louder and louder volumes, unbelieving and believing friends of mine alike...

Nonetheless, at the culmination of His "creation", upon the sixth and last day, God creates Adam, the first man, “in His own image” directly from dust (Genesis 2:7), contradicting indisputable scientific mapping of evolution. Evolution, currently, has even been accepted by the Catholic Church and several Protestant sects, too, in accordance with reality have followed. Anyway, God grants Adam the paradise of the Garden of Eden, and at God's command, Moses enjoys naming all the animals (Genesis 2:18); here, too, Genesis scientifically fails again considering many animals remain undiscovered today, or even just long-undiscovered for millenniums. Moreover any attempted arguments from Christians concerning this problematic complex, Adam would indisputably be busy counting still today - hopefully with a thesaurus, the poor guy! Ultimately, unbelievable as it may sound, either way Genesis' case against science is preliminarily closed by its mathematical impossibilities: seven billion persons - not including everyone who has previously lived - exist on Earth; first of all, we derive from Evolution, and secondly, Adam and Eve could not possibly have been the beginning humans considering its math complexly far from accounts how the population could have possibly grown by billions throughout a mere 4,000 years.

Moving forth, however, Adam (at this point the only created human) eventually becomes lonesome and he asks God to give him a partner, wherein the origin to THOUSANDS OF YEARS of sexism against women is found, as paraphrased: while Adam slept, God took one of Adam’s ribs and from it created Eve, the first woman, from Adam - NOT “in His own image”, explicitly (Genesis 2:22). Thereon, the two coexist in the Garden of Eden for quite some time, though God’s one specific rule is to not eat a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. However, eventually and inevitably, Satan, the antithesis to God and the supreme evil in these religions tempts Eve to eat a fruit from the tree when she is near it and curious, and he assures her that she will become a goddess. This molds a fantasy, a burning aspiration in her mind. She eventually gives in, and then offers Adam the fruit from the tree which he too takes. They become aware of their nakedness and their innocence is lost, and in their disobedience, God exiles them from the paradise of Eden into the imperfect world that is our own (Genesis 3). This makes little logical sense, for A), it was meaninglessly cruel to pervert Eden with the Forbidden Tree in the first place, and B), Eve faced a much greater temptation than Adam's; to accurately illuminate this, one must understand that Adam fell upon a human’s, Eve's, temptation, whereas Eve fell at Satan's, the greatest force of evil in the universe; does the former's (Adam's) temptation sound anywhere near equal to the degree of severity in the latter's (Eve's) confrontation with temptation? Considering this comparative rationale, the sexism Christians have interpreted from the story into real life is thereby faulty, maliciously unfair beyond a shadow of a doubt, as respectively proved.

Regardless, for thousands of years oppression toward women, condoned slavery, and ethnic cleansing were few of many dire consequences from Moses' inscriptions. They are all based on preposterous testimonies of a serial rapist and mass murderer, arrogantly self-proclaimed at that, who claims to have split the Red Sea. But whether or not you believe these outrageous claims of his, there's still no way to reconcile who Moses truly was, and it is too crucial to have an accurate portrayal of the writer. With this knowledge at hand, it is doubtful that the many followers of these faiths wouldn't bring Moses' authenticity into question. And yet, Moses, the rapist/mass slayer himself, continuously perpetuates the essence of Christian and Judaic doctrine, substantially shaping some of the more salacious parts of the Bible, which of course is considered the final, all-overruling "Word of God"; and yet, it is that very "Word" which has been time and time again used to "justify" countless prejudices and abominations, yes, even still today (very much so, in fact!).

Yes, sadly, Moses' brainwashing, sometimes inconceivably evil testaments threaten scientific knowledge everywhere even today, unprecedentedly slandering Evolution as 'disproved' or 'just a theory'. (The latter is misleading - Evolution will remain a theory until scientists map every single evolutionary link intertwining (at least!) 4.7 billion species together.) The Genesis story has been taught as completely factual since its documentation, and in today's society is still extremely pivotal; it has always been incorporated with most significance in Judaism and Christianity, as important to the latter as the Gospels. Today, however, the interpretation is often altered erroneously in many metaphors alike to those above, not one which can override technical and scientific errors. And through this story is the infamously taught, sexist statement that women were, “created second (of Adam, importantly, not God), first to sin." This quote was universally accepted until not long ago, and still is upheld by more than just Christian fundamentalists, too.

Notwithstanding, if Moses' nature were to be fully exposed, the true nature of St. Paul - Christian doctrine's second primary founder, the respective (or perhaps irrespective, certainly from my point of view anyway) writer of 14 of the 27 New Testament books - must undoubtedly unravel in the open, too. Therefore, to pertinently prove Paul's exponentially unflattering character, I henceforth analyze him with perfect Biblical accuracy:

Undeniably through his popularity, Paul was given immense attention before becoming a Christian icon. Though not alive in Jesus’ lifetime, Paul claims to have had a spectral encounter with Jesus, allegedly causing his Christian conversion and resignation as an executioner of mostly Christians: as the Scripture alleges, St. Paul became the supreme Christian missionary hereby, God's blessed authoritarian here on Earth, because of this divine enlightenment (Acts 22:6-21). To emphasize, throughout the New Testament St. Paul assuredly commends himself so much that he arguably exceeds Jesus as a contributor to Christian doctrine. Indeed, because most of the crucial New Testament texts were written by him (the bulk of which were explicitly detailed letters instructing early congregations on how to live as Christians, for instance), Paul's testaments to Christ became an overpowering influence when Rome was converted into an official Christian state during the early and mid fourth-century; hence Paul's work was a major contributing force to Christianity's progressive rise into its totalitarian control over the people in Rome. The rest is history, decades and decades of corrupt Christian domination and control over the Roman state and its people, which eventually led to the stagnant Dark Ages.

But to further elaborate on the specified, too crucial historical context, it was Emperor Constantine who first converted to Christianity in 312 AD right before the Battle of Milvian Bridge, and then, starting in 313 AD with The Edict of Milan (which protected Christians from any kind of religious persecution after centuries of clandestine worship), he began slowly incorporating Christianity into his empire; eventually, then he consequentially made it the official religion of the Roman state; consecutively, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD determined what books would be officiated into the finalized Christian Bible, and it so happened that the writings of Paul were the predominant choices among the texts appropriated for the New Testament. (For more on Constantine, consult this scholarly resource.) With all that in mind, it remains to be SO perplexing how many of Paul's instructional, supposedly "Christ-given" ultimatums - notably directed both to the day's Christians AND to those of the future just as well - are of no foundation to the Gospels, which of course are the Bible's four canonized biographical accounts of Jesus' life (also selected in 325 AD by the same Council of Nicaea in turn). (For an overview of the overwhelming errors throughout specifically the Gospels' text, see my essay "The Real Jesus".)

Interestingly, Jesus Christ, the alleged "Messiah" and entire purpose of Christianity, elevated women enormously. For instance, the very first disciples to witness and spread the news of the Resurrection were some of the more prominent women in the Gospels, each whom had great significance to Jesus (Mark 16:9; John 20:14). In contrast, Paul condemned women as weak and naive, "submissive" creatures, and ordered them to be totally silent in church, even going as far as to make the disgusting distinction, "If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34). That verse alone easily sums the fact that Paul definitely didn’t choose to expand the paths Jesus opened up for his female followers. No, in spite that Christ layered to life potential advancement for women, Paul oppositely chose to extend further the extremely sexist predilections laid-out by Moses. He reinforced the despicable belief that men were superior and must completely dominate women. Though he does instruct husbands to take care of their wives, Paul repeatedly describes women as submissive, weak, intellectually inferior, and much more susceptible to sin (just like Eve); overall, the misogynistic fraud is firm to emphasize that women are in their rightful place when subservient to men.

None of this should in any way, shape or form be viewed as anything but intolerable, especially considering women were amongst the most devout to him, from his mother, Mary, to Mary Magdalene, who, as noted, is specifically cited as the first to witness the Resurrection of Jesus, after his death on the cross. He suggested equality in his sermons and reinvented the roles women played during that time. As a matter of fact, Jesus encourages Mary Magdalene to spread his teachings as he would shortly ascend into heaven (John 20:14); rewind now to the previously mentioned fact that Paul insisted women be silent in church and allow their husbands to interpret the sermons for them later...And now you have reached a smoking gun among the innumerable number of contradictions (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)! With this you can now clearer see that Paul completely contradicts Jesus Christ in pivotal places, obviously here given Jesus selected Mary Magdalene, a woman, to be the first preacher of the "Good News", that he, the true Christ, had resurrected, of course!

Paul also introduces condemnation for homosexuality and vehemently condones slavery, the former which hasn't any corroboration in the Gospels. He lies without need even, such as in The Book of Acts, in which he declares Jesus instructed, "...remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This is not at all within the Gospels of the Bible, the only testimonies Christianity holds exclusively valid. But likewise, Paul certainly never met Jesus for him to tell his distinct statements, given they each were living during very different time periods. Additionally, in The Book of Corinthians, Paul contradicts Jesus on the very crucial topic of baptism, saying, "For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). That's a rather bold claim considering Jesus clarified in The Gospel of Matthew, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." (Matthew 28:19). Still, Christian doctrine considers Paul divine, so nearly all Christians uphold his Biblical ultimatums as if the unarguable inconsistencies do not exist. Is a supposed spectral meeting with Jesus really enough to support the level of credibility Paul gained control of? Isn't it more than speculative to suppose if it were well publicized in church that Paul specifically never met Jesus - in combination with explaining that they conflict contradictorily, too - Christians MIGHT have a little suspicion in his authority?

The obvious explanation is that Paul, the converted Christian and former serial executioner of Christians, must have used his political power to gain prevalence in Christianity. Perhaps it was guilt that caused his conversion and a spectral account would have been taken seriously then, especially with his place of power, though there is no method of finding certainty. Regardless, just like today, those with the most popularity control the spheres of power. However, it can't even be suggested that Paul truly was divinely inspired, that he spoke for the church Jesus Christ founded; how can it be so, when he largely mishaps between statements, and demonstrates his unknowing inaccuracy? It all returns full circle to the fact that he never met Jesus. At essence, Paul’s testimonies do not always accurately corroborate with the messages of Jesus in the Gospels. Plain and simple. Paul’s messages were severe and intimidating; Jesus’ messages were uplifting and inspiring. Though this may simply be a contrast of the two’s articulation, Paul is, after all, basing himself more severely just upon spectral evidence.

(Paul, fairly speaking, did totally agree with Jesus AND Moses on one thing: slavery, considering he, in corroboration, strictly instructed, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ" (Ephesians 6:5). Alongside the words of Moses and Jesus, slavery was upheld in our country under God's name approvingly. I find it absolutely revolting that the black community is perhaps the most loyal to Christianity in our country, yet they suffered more than any other demographic in terms of violence and enslavement! Every time a slave was beaten, it was in the name of God - every last scar, every last scream.)

Anyhow, if you remember nothing else, ingrain into your mind these following passages; hereby, the all-defining, all-necessary piece holding together the whole Christian puzzle becomes perhaps the biggest scriptural hoax ever, arguably debunking Christianity completely: In The Book of Corinthians, Paul explains that Christianity lives or dies SOLELY on Jesus' Resurrection (1 Corinthian 15: 14-17). Contradictorily, Jesus stated very specifically, in the Gospel of Matthew, he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights; however, if he died Friday evening and arose Sunday Morning (as revealed in the doctrine),then Paul has completely revealed his deception! Accordingly, there is no messiah, Paul is not a prophet, and the Bible is unreal - And Paul is to blame. With that said, other discrepancies are present in their characteristics alone: Jesus was a revolutionary, an ultimate controversy, as he claimed to be the Messiah.

In stark contrast, in fact, Jesus motivated people to do good works to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and mainly drew indication toward that the wicked would not being granted entry to Heaven. And possibly most remarkable is Paul’s message that if one does not trust Jesus alone for forgiveness, one is doomed to hell. Such testimonies of Paul’s remain Christianity's basis, as well as the cause of its subsequent phenomenal intolerance and bigotry. But how can ONE man receive extraordinary blame for everything, you challenge? Well, in stating Christianity's the only path to salvation - that therefore outsiders are salvaged only upon conversion - Paul inadvertently (maybe anyway) catalyzed millenniums of bloodshed in Christ's name! And yet, altogether, spectral evidence is preposterously immaterial inside any modern courtroom worldwide. Historically, it even condemned innocent Puritans to death in seventeenth-century Salem, where solely based upon spectral recounts of witchcraft, wrongful executions were rampantly justified. Today, in total contrast spectral evidence would never be even a (wrongly) guessed form of acceptable evidence! Despite these complexities, an insanely large portion of the Christiane doctrine is enigmatically based solely on this!

In culmination, the single-handed, consistent solidified fact is that religion essentially depends first on faith, especially in Christianity's case. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to have beliefs pertaining to the world's unexplainable and extraordinary phenomena. However, regardless it remains inexcusable how Moses and Paul, two of Christianity's most significant figures, substantially indoctrinated religious codes that inevitably brought the divisive forces of tyranny, narcissism, terror, dissent, and conspiratorial politicians for centuries. Astoundingly, all these contentions continue causing pandemonium even today. But underneath it all, still I daringly ask Christians if they really never wonder why Paul made sure to say, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition" (Colossians 2:8)? Illuminatingly, now Paul's deception is particularly obvious, or shouldn't it be? Well, considering the numerous contradictions between Jesus and Paul (only a select few which are fitted here), just one irrefutable answer can be wised: Paul had dishonesty, countless imperfections, and a monstrous agenda to hide behind. But in spite of that and everything else, most imperative is that individuals form their belief or disbelief in Moses and Paul following proper education. I solemnly promise that unblemished Biblical knowledge will lead you to the most valid conclusion:

Moses and Paul are to be looked upon with disapproval, rejection, and, arguably, even hate.


The two sinister, ill-intentioned men, portrayed together: