Why is Luke considered an inspired book

When the author so assertively says in the introduction

Inasmuch as a number of writers have essayed to draw up a narrative of the established facts in our religion 2 exactly as these have been handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses who were in the service of the Gospel Message, 3 and inasmuch as I have gone carefully over them all myself from the very beginning, I have decided, O Theophilus, to write them out in order for your excellency, 4 to let you know the solid truth of what you have been taught.

He is relaying what he has read or others have said. And nowhere does he claim inspiration from anywhere, not even from a joint.

Whose work is he referring to? Who had written these earlier gospels and why doesn’t he mention their names?

And if he has gone carefully through them, let’s for the sake of argument say it was Mathew he read, why does his genealogy of Jesus H. Christ differ from it?

There are 7 miracles only Luke knows where he got. Did he make them up? If he is a historian, does he treat of history when he writes of miracles? Should we take him seriously as a historian?

Spinoza on miracles

Though I disagree with most of what Spinoza says, I think he is close to truth when he writes

I have shown that scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in order and style which has most power to move men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of god and of events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination.

On the importance of miracles to the Christian faith

However skillfully the modern ingenuity of semi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is clear to every honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be incredible, christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the gospels are untrustworthy… If the resurrection be merely a spiritual idea, or a mythicized hallucination, then our religion has been founded on an error.
Dr. Farrar

on miracles and revealed religion

In Walter R. Cassels’ response to Dr. Lightfoot, contained in A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s essays, he writes in his concluding remarks, emphasis mine and made in relation to this discussion on Violet’s blog.

The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all miraculous pretension.

He continues elsewhere, and I agree

Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for ever annihilated them.

To justify the belief in miracles, he says the peddlers make two assumptions

first, an Infinite Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably maintained.

I rest my case.

God has been photographed

But the photos are invisible!

This morning my brother informed me of the Nigerian man hospitalized for his atheism[ see previous post] then I find this post of a nun who claimed to have photographed god. The only reassuring thing about the whole episode is those close to her didn’t believe her.

Hear what she tells us

I was revealing what God had told me and they didn’t believe but these are the real words from God, ‘Listen to me I am above this earth, I have allowed you and you alone to photograph me for them to know the truth’. I managed to photograph Him but what surprised me is that when I took the full image, it came out a passport size picture of the image of Christ because he did not want people to know what he looks like

I am willing to buy them drinks if they can only share with me these photos.

I don’t know about you, but I am calling this bull

There was also another miracle where a photographer in Uganda attempted to take a picture of the sister while attending a seminar there but when he produced the film, the picture of Mary the mother of Jesus appeared in the background holding the holy sacrament. All these pictures are available at the Cathedral church in Eldoret.

I am not aware of anyone who has an inkling of what Mary, if she lived, looked like. How do people believe such bs? And now they think she should be made a saint.

Just as with the Jesus story where there is no father, no body so it is with the camera and photos in this case. We are told

The lady had shown us several wonderful miracles, which I as a bishop have never seen in my life. Even the cameras she used to photograph the alleged Lord were later blown up after she finished taking the pictures. We did not believe and bought a new one. Surprisingly it was also damaged, according to the technician who attended both of them

and this bullcrap is voiced by the bishop! Not that I hold the bishop or any church person in high regard, but what this means is most of the lay people will just buy this crap. It has come from the bishop and so it must be true.

woman photographs god

if the miracles of the OT and NT were true

 it could be said that God showed more care in meeting the least needs of men than in their greatest and principal need; that he more severely punished slight faults in certain persons than he punished great crimes in others; and finally that he didn’t show himself so beneficent in the most pressing of needs than in the least of them. All this is easy to show, as much by the miracles that he is said to have performed as by those he didn’t perform and that he should more likely have performed than any other – if it were true he had done any. For example, to say that God had the kindness to send an angel to console and aid a simple servant when he left – and still leaves – to languish and die in misery an infinite number of innocents; that he would miraculously preserve for forty years the clothing and shoes of a miserable people, when he doesn’t watch over the natural preservation of so many goods so useful and necessary for people’s subsistence, and which every day are lost through different accidents. What! He sent to the first chiefs of the human race, Adam and Eve, a demon, a devil, a simple snake to seduce them and in this way to destroy all men? This simply isn’t credible. What! He would have wanted, through a special grace of his providence, to prevent the king of pagan Geraris from falling into a minor error with a foreign woman, an error that would have had no ill consequences, yet he didn’t want to prevent Adam and Eve from offending him and falling into the sin of disobedience, a sin which, according to our Christ-lovers, is fatal and caused the humanity’s destruction? This isn’t credible.

From an excerpt of The Testament of Jean Messlier

Does science contradict religion? What did you think, of course it does!

Yours truly is of the opinion that theist apologists are either not creative or you can only repeat the same lie enough times before it becomes tired. And for the purposes of this post, even if this does seem as beating an already dead horse, it can’t be said enough times that theists are simply wrong and no matter how much they try to comport religion and science, it simply doesn’t work in their favour.

In this post, the author presents several fallacious arguments in support of theism and I will in this post try to respond to just a few without making this post very long, so dear reader, please bear with me! I have tried to summarize most of the trope in the post but anyone with time on their hands could read it for their journey towards Judaism 2.0.

(1) If science contradicts religion, how do atheists explain the fact that most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously?

This doesn’t make the bible true. It only means that bright individuals can believe stupid things.

(2) If religion is an obstacle to science, how do atheists get round the fact that empirical science first arose in Christian Europe, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism?

Evolution isn’t the only science you dimwit!

(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of modern science believe in God?

Most people believed in god and thought it was a sufficient explanation for causes they didn’t understand. Nothing special about it.

(4) Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being.

No you twit! The problem of evil contradicts a benevolent god. The argument from design is rejected on its own, because it is a bad argument. There is nothing that says the designer has to be a god and two, the key word is nature appears to be designed, not that it is designed.

(5) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology

What evidence?

6) The realms of microbiology and biochemistry provide equally compelling evidence that life in all its forms is the product of intelligent design rather than unguided natural forces.

You start with the assumption that life is designed and conclude life is designed. This is not a bad argument, it is plain stupid. Besides, all available evidence point to Nature as the source of all life,  and nothing outside of it.

(7) Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, has nothing to do with ID. The question that you think is fundamental can’t be answered by positing gods and yes, if by the universe you mean nature, yes, it is a self sufficient and doesn’t require an intelligence out of it.

The cosmological argument for God’s existence addresses this vital question, and is based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing – a self-evident truth supported by logic and experience.

No, the cosmological argument goes nowhere. The simple question is what caused your god? If on the other hand s/h/it is eternal, the same is true of matter. So what would god be doing?

Given these self-evident truths, does our knowledge of the universe suggest that it is self-existent?

What truths?

If, then, God is real, what can the cosmological argument tell us about His attributes and character?

Which god and what is god?

A great deal. All we have to do, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1: 19-20, is look at His creation – at all that He has made.

Unfortunately this verse tells us nothing other that god is invisible, how that is something you are yet to me!

This tells us, first of all, that since the universe and all it contains is unimaginably vast and powerful in terms of its mass, extent, and energy, its Creator must be supremely powerful.

How did you get to this point of the universe requiring a creator? And yes, nature is unimaginably vast and powerful. It is the sufficient cause of all it encompasses. Am waiting for you to tell me the boundaries of nature if you can…… and am patient, very patient!

Secondly, since the universe contains living, intelligent, and personal beings, and many other hallmarks of design, its Creator must be living, intelligent, and personal.

Far from it. Attributing human characteristics of goodness, intelligence and animation to nature will not get you anywhere. Nature need not be intelligent but it allows for intelligent beings disposed in a certain manner to exist.

Thirdly, since human beings possess moral awareness and feel guilty when they do wrong, their Creator must be Goodness personified, or ‘holy’, to use the language of the Bible.

You should have been using the language of the bible all along for that is where you get such silly ideas. And no again, man acts in a certain way because that is his nature and gods, whatever they are, having nothing to do with our morals. Goodness only make sense when comparing two things, what do you mean when you say god is good? What does it mean to say his nature is goodness?

Finally, since the distance between non-existence and existence is an infinite one, a God who can create an entire universe out of nothing must be all-knowing and all-powerful.

What is infinity? Do you just use the word because you hear it? Have you considered what it means? One, you haven’t established anywhere that the universe was created, the how and why, two you have not said what god is and lastly why it is necessary for one to exist.

(9) Atheists commonly argue that Darwinian evolution provides an adequate explanation of the appearance of design in Nature, without needing to invoke God as its intelligent cause.

There is nothing about atheism that requires you to hold evolution as true. But most atheists understand the evidence for evolution and why it is both fact and theory. You on the other hand seem to me to not have read about it.

(10) Another feature of life which points to God and cannot be explained by atheist philosophers and scientists, is the phenomenon of human consciousness.

So you think positing a ghost would settle the matter! Nature has arranged atoms in some of its creatures in a certain way that they are conscious, nothing magical about it except that we don’t understand how nature structured this.

Philosophy and science both support the teaching of Christian theology that humans are spiritual as well as material beings, created by God.

This statement could only have been made by an ignoramus.

At the end of his life, France’s best-known existentialist and atheist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, confessed: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a king whom only a Creator could put here; the idea of a creating hand refers to God.”

Many people have said so many things at the point of death. This unfortunately doesn’t bring your ghosts into existence.

(11) Science does not and cannot rule out supernatural events like miracles.

What is a miracle and what purpose would they serve?


Jean Meslier on the New Testament

Friends, I know you have read the many quotes from the Testament by J. Meslier that I have posted in the past. Here is another one on the NT prophecies.

Let us examine the pretended prophecies which are contained in the Gospels.

Firstly. An angel having appeared in a dream to a man named Joseph, father, or at least so reputed, of Jesus, son of Mary, said unto him:

“Joseph, thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS; for He shall save His people from their sins.” This angel said also to Mary:

“Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end!” Jesus began to preach and to say:

“Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment, for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Now, let every man who has not lost common sense, examine if this Jesus ever was a king, or if His disciples had abundance of all things. This Jesus promised to deliver the world from sin. Is there any prophecy which is more false? Is not our age a striking proof of it? It is said that Jesus came to save His people. In what way did He save it? It is the greatest number which rules any party. For example, one dozen or two of Spaniards or Frenchmen do not constitute the French or Spanish people; and if an army of a hundred and twenty thousand men were taken prisoners of war by an army of enemies which was stronger, and if the chief of this army should redeem only a few men, as ten or twelve soldiers or officers, by paying their ransom, it could not be claimed that he had delivered or redeemed his army. Then, who is this God who has been sacrificed, who died to save the world, and leaves so many nations damned? What a pity! and what horror!

Jesus Christ says that we have but to ask and we shall receive, and to seek and we shall find. He assures us that all we ask of God in His name shall be granted, and that if we have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, we could by one word remove mountains. If this promise is true, nothing appears impossible to our Christ-worshipers who have faith in Jesus. However, the contrary happens. If Mohammed had made the promises to his votaries that Christ made to His, without success, what would not be said about it. They would cry out, “Ah, the cheat! ah, the impostor!” These Christ-worshipers are in the same condition: they have been blind, and have not even yet recovered from their blindness; on the contrary, they are so ingenious in deceiving themselves, that they pretend that these promises have been fulfilled from the beginning of Christianity; that at that time it was necessary to have miracles, in order to convince the incredulous of the truth of religion; but that this religion being sufficiently established, the miracles were no longer necessary. Where, then, is their proof of all this?

Besides, He who made these promises did not limit them to a certain time, or to certain places, or to certain persons; but He made them generally to everybody. The faith of those who believe, says He, shall be followed by these miracles; “They shall cast out devils in My name, they shall speak in divers tongues, they shall handle serpents,” etc.

In regard to the removal of mountains, He positively says that “whoever shall say to a mountain: ‘Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea;’ it shall be done;” provided that he does not doubt in his heart, but believes all he commands will be done. Are not all these promises given in a general way, without restriction as to time, place, or persons?

It is said that all the sects which are founded in errors and imposture will come to a shameful end. But if Jesus Christ intends to say that He has established a society of followers who will not fall either into vice or error, these words are absolutely false, as there is in Christendom no sect, no society, and no church which is not full of errors and vices, especially the Roman Church, although it claims to be the purest and the holiest of all. It was born into error, or rather it was conceived and formed in error; and even now it is full of delusions which are contrary to the intentions, the sentiments, or the doctrine of its Founder, because it has, contrary to His intention, abolished the laws of the Jews, which He approved, and which He came Himself, as He said, to fulfill and not to destroy. It has fallen into the errors and idolatry of Paganism, as is seen by the idolatrous worship which is offered to its God of dough, to its saints, to their images, and to their relics.

I know well that our Christ-worshipers consider it a lack of intelligence to accept literally the promises and prophecies as they are expressed; they reject the literal and natural sense of the words, to give them a mystical and spiritual sense which they call allegorical and figurative; claiming, for example, that the people of Israel and Judea, to whom these promises were made, were not understood as the Israelites after the body, but the Israelites in spirit: that is to say, the Christians which are the Israel of God, the true chosen people that by the promise made to this enslaved people, to deliver it from captivity, it is understood to be not the corporal deliverance of a single captive people, but the spiritual deliverance of all men from the servitude of the Devil, which was to be accomplished by their Divine Saviour; that by the abundance of riches, and all the temporal blessings promised to this people, is meant the abundance of spiritual graces; and finally, that by the city of Jerusalem, is meant not the terrestrial Jerusalem, but the spiritual Jerusalem, which is the Christian Church.

But it is easy to see that these spiritual and allegorical meanings having only a strange, imaginary sense, being a subterfuge of the interpreters, can not serve to show the truth or the falsehood of a proposition, or of any promises whatever. It is ridiculous to forge such allegorical meanings, since it is only by the relations of the natural and true sense that we can judge of their truth or falsehood. A proposition, a promise, for example, which is considered true in the proper and natural sense of the terms in which it is expressed, will not become false in itself under cover of a strange sense, one which does not belong to it. By the same reasoning, that which is manifestly false in its proper and natural sense, will not become true in itself, although we give it a strange sense, one foreign to the true.

We can say that the prophecies of the Old Testament adjusted to the New, would be very absurd and puerile things. For example, Abraham had two wives, of which the one, who was but a servant, represented the synagogue, and the other one, his lawful wife, represented the Christian Church; and that this Abraham had two sons, of which the one born of Hagar, the servant, represented the Old Testament; and the other, born of Sarah, the wife, represented the New Testament. Who would not laugh at such a ridiculous doctrine?

Is it not amusing that a piece of red cloth, exhibited by a prostitute as a signal to spies, in the Old Testament is made to represent the blood of Jesus Christ shed in the New? If—according to this manner of interpreting allegorically all that is said, done, and practiced in the ancient law of the Jews—we should interpret in the same allegorical way all the discourses, the actions, and the adventures of the famous Don Quixote de la Mancha, we would find the same sort of mysteries and ridiculous figures.

It is nevertheless upon this absurd foundation that the whole Christian religion rests. Thus it is that there is scarcely anything in this ancient law that the Christ-worshiping doctors do not try to explain in a mystical way to build up their system. The most false and the most ridiculous prophecy ever made is that of Jesus, in Luke, where it is pretended that there will be signs in the sun and in the moon, and that the Son of Man will appear in a cloud to judge men; and this is predicted for the generation living at that time. Has it come to pass? Did the Son of Man appear in a cloud?

Lets have some fun

Those who have been following this blog for a time now must have met my friend who runs a very beautiful blog with whom I disagree on almost all subjects.

I realize most of the people who come here are members of the choir and someone would ask why sing to the choir but it is by singing to the choir that you get to be corrected and improve your singing or how else do you think you can get better at singing? I will keep singing 😀

This is the second post in a series where I chose to respond/ comment to any blog as I so please. I will ignore the bible verses because as you already know, I find nothing in the bible that could not have been written by a barbarian. There is nothing in truly novel about our existence except maybe the writer of the book of Wisdom who says all is vanity and I can bet my 2 cents[ I don’t want to lose much] that he/she must have been a non-believer.

God always glorifies Himself. His glory is not limited to our deliberate and conscious acts of glorifying Him. Even when we do not do anything for His glory, God is still glorified. There’s nothing we can do to diminish God’s intrinsic glory. There’s nothing we can do increase that glory. This is simply because God is self-existent, perfect and complete in Himself. God’s might and power doesn’t increase when we “lift” Him up or praise Him. neither does His power and might decrease when we fail to praise and worship Him. I will even go to the extent of claiming that God is glorified even in our sin. Remember the famous words of Joseph to his wayward brothers?

If just for the purpose of this statement grant this god existence, why worship him? Isn’t superfluous to continue to do so? You are not about to change him/it/her. Please someone tell me, did I miss something?

Yes, God is glorified and His eternal purposes come to pass even in our disobedience. God’s glory is constant, just like His being, His power and His presence is constant. However, our experience, apprehension and acknowledgement of God’s glory is not constant. And this makes all the difference in the world.

If eternal purpose is to send some to hell for eternal punishment, I volunteer my services to annihilate this god!

You’ve probably heard of the saying, “Never criticize what God is blessing.” If you haven’t, it is a common response often directed at people like me, who often find things to criticize within the church. Another statement that is closely associated with this one is “Do not touch the Lord’s anointed”. [……], Astar concerning the music “Take Backs” that him and his ministry had started doing. […] was a sign of compromise to the Christian witness. But he would hear none of it. His adamant response and conviction sounded something like the statement above. He insisted, “I am seeing fruit from what I am doing, that is proof that God is using ‘take-backs’ to save souls. Therefore, it is proof that I am doing ministry in obedience to God.”


Here we have two problems that we have dealt with before, that is, how do we know who is the true christian since all seem not to agree as to the manner and content of evangelism. The next problem is religious artists live in this natural world, you can’t have enough verses to sing about. A time must come when you must resort to the secular, it is the source of all that is beautiful anyway! How do these christians measure the fruit, is it by how many records sold or how many times it is sold on radio, I need help friends 😀

[…….], Jesus says that “you will recognize them by their fruit” (Matt 7:16) What He was talking about was the fruit of the prophet’s life, not the fruit of the prophet’s ministry. In other words, it is primarily the life of the minister, not the outcome of the ministry, that constitutes fruit. Astar’s justification (in that particular instance) was misplaced because I wasn’t criticizing his life, but his ministry. Was his ministry bearing fruit? Yes. Did the sinful actions of Joseph bear good fruit? Yes.

Help me again here, how do we know false prophets? The same Jesus is said to have said how the false prophets shall be known but their actions includes miracles[forget the fact they don’t happen in real life], am hoping that my friend will be kind and generous as to tell me how to distinguish prophets. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9 talks of counterfeit miracles, which fortunately for us all, they don’t mention.

But Joseph still criticized his brothers. He criticized their actions, the actions that God had, in His sovereignty, worked through to bless and save Israel. Joseph criticized what God was blessing. Why? Because the means are just as important to God as the ends. To criticize questionable ministry practices does not necessarily mean dismissing any positive fruit from such practices. To criticize Catholicism doesn’t necessarily mean that there are no true converts in the catholic church. To criticize what God is blessing does not necessarily mean criticizing God’s ability to bless. So, we must not shy away from criticizing what God is blessing, as long as we do not dismiss the blessing in the process. Criticize, but don’t forget to glorify.

Am truly lost.

So, if God is glorified whether we obey Him or not, does our obedience matter? A similar question was asked by Paul, if God’s Grace is magnified in our disobedience, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” (Rom 6:1). And his response?

“By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

I could be wrong, was god such a failure? He came here, died resurrected[ granting all that for a moment] and he didn’t finish sin? It’s like an oncologist operating a tumor and leaves a part of it growing actively knowing fully well it will spread. Now tell me who does things this way apart from the willfully ignorant?

God is love. His grace abounds to the chiefest of sinners. And as long as we are living in these vestigial bodies of sin, our best efforts will continue to be marred by sin. God will still continue to use crooked sticks and broken vessels. This does not mean the he approves of the crookedness. Neither does it mean that we cannot seek to straighten that crooked sticks. In the same way, God glorified Himself through the broken, beaten and dead body of His son, Jesus Christ. But Jesus did not remain broken. He did not remain beaten. He did not remain dead. He rose again and is seated on the right hand of His father. He calls us to walk in His righteousness. To chase after perfection. To admonish, rebuke and correct imperfection. He calls us to ACTIVELY seek to glorify Him, not just passively do so.

First the word god hasn’t been coherently defined, so to say god is love, is to complicate matters further. I have asked my friends to tell me what god is and what love is and every one has a different answer. How one undefined quantity equals another undefined quantity beats me. If we are depraved, it is not our fault. The problem must be laid where it truly belongs and that is at the doorstep of one claimed to be creator, no one else. No passing the buck as a famous American president once said, the buck stops here. Better still if this god is what it’s believers say it is, why couldn’t it create all men like Jesus so he didn’t have to come and commit suicide here? He calls us to be serfs, and I don’t want. I want every man to think for himself, to be concerned with his good then he will be concerned with the good of others. And if a god were to exist, let it be said that I defended him, that an innocent man cannot die for the offence of another.

God is glorified in heaven as well as in hell. The difference is that those in heaven are consciously, willfully, deliberately and joyfully glorifying Him, while those in hell are unconsciously, unwillingly and woefully doing the same. I know which side I’d rather be in. Do you?

Am still shocked that in this day and age someone will still preach the hell of John Calvin. How debased is a person to write about the eternal damnation of his fellow-man. Again if gods are to exist let it be written, against my name, that I defended them against tyranny that it was said they planned to do to their creation. Again I say here as I have said, if not all men are saved then i DON’T want any salvation, I prefer to be annihilated. I don’t want to be in heaven knowing that a member of my race[humanity] is suffering eternally for a finite mistake, NO, I don’t want and it is the reason why I will keep writing.

I want to free brothers and sisters from the yoke of superstition and fear. I want men to be free. I want men to be rational, to think for themselves and most of all I want to destroy the doctrine of hell. I want it known if a god exists and has failed to end evil here, he can’t end it elsewhere where we don’t know. Let us make this place habitable for all of us by killing this phantoms, lets free men, women, children from priests. Let churches become libraries and theatres, let art be celebrated and curiosity encouraged.