The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “contradiction” as follows.
“A proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something… a logical incongruity… a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another.”
We all know that one minus one equals zero. This simple math problem perfectly represents the problem with contradictions, and why contradictory beliefs, statements, or ideas must necessarily be false. A proposition (1) combined with an exactly opposite proposition (-1) equals 0, meaning the opposite, or negative, cancels out the positive, thus invalidating it. This is why contradictory beliefs and statements are false. For example, there is no such thing as a round square. It is impossible. A square has four corners and four sides, while a circle, which is round, has none. A square can never be a circle, and a circle can never be a square, because they each hold qualities unique unto themselves which the other does not possess. A “round square” is therefore a contradiction.
I recently heard a preacher sarcastically chuckle how he “loves it” when people speak of Biblical contradictions, as if there are no meaningful contradictions to be found in scripture. He smugly stated how some people consider contradictions in the Bible to be nothing more than things such as the differing number of witnesses, people, shepherds, angels, etc., and other trivial numerical figures pertaining to the same event in different books of the Bible. This disingenuous, cowardly, ignorant, and selective preaching, which essentially amounts to “strawmanning,” or misrepresenting the position of those who call these Biblical contradictions out for what they are, without honestly looking at the genuine and most impactful contradictions in the Bible, several of which I explore throughout this book, and especially in the chapters contained within Part VI on the scriptural problems of Christianity, is insulting to any intelligent, rational, critical thinking person. Preachers like him merely play with the notion of a “question” without genuinely investigating it, because in fact they do not wish to investigate what they already believe to be the “truth” of their religious convictions. Since their conclusions are predetermined, then any “questioning” they do can only be a matter of filling in the details of an already completed picture, akin to “painting by number,” which has nothing whatsoever to do with the honest and sincere pursuit of truth.
While the non-existence of something, such as unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns can never be proven, by demonstrating the self-contradiction of the attributes of some thing, idea or a concept, we can prove a universal negative without omniscience. We can say that which cannot exist if its attributes are self-contradictory, does not exist. We can do this because that which is a contradiction is false. We know this logically and intuitively. Round squares do not exist. That being said, let us see if some of the most widespread and accepted beliefs about the Christian God are true or false.
God exists: The biggest question of almost all religions, the answer to which virtually all religions depend upon is, does God exit or does God not exist? To answer this, we must first examine the question of what existence itself is. What can exist is by definition always a limited, self-contained entity, being, or form as distinct and separate from other things, because if things are not defined and therefore limited as separate and distinct from other things, then they cannot be said to “exist” if you cannot describe their unique attributes, which are synonymous with limits. Ultimately, all of these attributes and distinctions are illusions at the fundamental level, since All is One. This truth in itself invalidates the notion of anything existing, let alone God. Sure, things do “exist” in a sense, but all forms are ever-changing, and are therefore impermanent. Existence is real, but only as a dream is real – actual experiences in our body and mind, yet temporary, passing, and therefore illusory. The fact of impermanence, demonstrated in every moment by everything we observe, in which things are constantly being born, dying, and ever-changing, proves no individual separate entity, being, or form has any essence of its own. Self-essence and the notion of “separateness” are therefore illusions of appearance.
The fact absolutely nothing whatsoever exists independently of anything else, and is always a combination of multiple pre-existing elements also proves the fact and truth of Oneness. Only if things existed independently from everything else could Oneness not be true. Since everything co-exists in dependence on everything else, all is truly One. That is one of the reasons why the notion of “substance dualism,” the idea there are two self-essential realities, one “material” and the other “spiritual” is not true. Also, the very notion of a “non-physical substance” such as a “soul” or a “spirit” is a contradiction of terms, like a “round square.” It cannot exist because by definition only that which contains physical properties, such as matter and energy can be “of substance.” Furthermore, to believe in “multiple self-essential realities” is to be confused by the illusion of self-essence, which is never true. There is no such thing as “multiple essences.” The fact all things are dependent on other things for their existence proves there is no such thing as “multiple” and “individual” essence, and the truth all is one. That is why essence is one, and can never be many. This is true whether we are talking about beings, things, universes, substances, or anything else we perceive to be of a separate and distinct essence from anything else.
Like waves in the ocean, the forms of All are impermanent, ever-changing, appearing at once, and then disappearing into the same, one water. Or as stated in one of the more truthful passages in Genesis, from Genesis 3:19.
“…for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
All that is, is of the same One, just as the waves of an ocean are the water and never separate from it, but appear as distinct aspects of that same one water. All forms of manifested existence appear to be distinct, separate aspects of the same One. This is an illusion since the only Truth is One, as the example of the ocean waves illustrates. Since nothing is permanent, then in Truth, nothing exists, as the notion of permanent, unchanging form – ego, is illusion.
Another way to illustrate the ultimate Truth of Oneness is to think of a pie. If we take one pie, and then cut it up into multiple pieces, is it still one pie, or is it many pies? Nobody calls a slice of pie a separate pie in and of itself. It is still just one pie now divided into many pieces. The oneness of the pie – the fact it is one pie, remains no matter how many times we divide it with slices, just as all elements within the universe, including our egos, are merely pieces of the same one universe. All notions of separate “pieces” as being self-contained entities within themselves, “separate pies” if you will, which is the notion of ego, is an illusion. Since ego is illusion, all notions of separate, self-essential “beings,” even the notion of a separate ”supreme being ego-god” is also an illusion. Therefore, God, as understood by the standard definition of God as a separate, self-contained, self-essential, separate being cannot and therefore does not exist. Even if we say for argument’s sake God does exist, the standard definition of God creates immediate problems. The reason is because one of the characteristics of God is that he is “spiritual,” “transcendent,” and “limitless.” Nothing which is truly “spiritual,” “transcendent” and “limitless” can exist because by definition, only that which is defined and therefore limited, and contained within a distinct form can exist, as we discovered previously. Since God is said to not be limited in any way, he cannot exist because only that which is limited – or defined by attributes separating it from other things can exist. Therefore, an “unlimited,” “transcendent” being, just like the notion of a “spiritual being” is the same as a round square. It is a contradiction of terms, and therefore does not exist. Calling this logical contradiction a “mystery” or cleverly re-naming it a “paradox” we cannot understand to rationalize the “reality” of God doesn’t get us anywhere in “explaining God,” or keeping such a notion from being impossible due to its logical contradiction. Sound reasoning calls this way of thinking out for what it is – pure rationalization and an argument from ignorance, which therefore explains nothing.
God is all powerful: As we discovered in the last question on the existence of God, ego is illusion, therefore the notion of a “supreme being ego-god” who “makes decisions,” who has a “will” or a “plan,” who “makes things happen” or “prevents things from happening,” in also an illusion. To believe in an “all-powerful god” who can intervene or “make things happen” is just an egotistical projection of our hopes and fears onto an imaginary being to give us comfort. “God” as I understand the idea in any meaningful way is simply The Oneness of All, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the dualistic games of the limited ego as found in Judeo-Christian, Islamic notions of God. Even if we concede God is an “all-powerful being,” we then need to reconcile the contradiction why a god of love and compassion would allow the torturous, hideous, horrific things to go on in this world without intervening when it is obvious we are often in need to “divine intervention.” Any parent of compassion would help their child if it became obvious their child was faced with a problem they could not handle on their own. Why would God do anything less for his children than we would do for ours? The notion of an “all-powerful God” is a contradiction in at least two ways – an “all-powerful being” who cannot do something – such as create logical contradictions like “round squares,” or forgive human beings without the need for blood sacrifice; and the notion of a separate “supreme being ego-god” when in truth, all beings are ultimately illusions to begin with, since All is One, invalidating the notion of a “separate god” from his creation. The bottom line is, an “all-powerful god” is like a round square. It is a contradiction, and therefore does not exist.
God is the Creator of all things: We get to the classic “creation versus evolution” argument. Another characteristic of the standard definition of God is that he is the Creator of everything in the universe, while remaining himself, uncreated. The contradiction of this should be immediately apparent because to believe all which exists requires a creator is to say God himself also requires a creator if he exists. Once we buy in to the notion of an “uncreated being” or “uncreated creator” of all things, the contradiction cannot be escaped. We cannot say all which exists requires a creator, and then at the same time say there is something that does not require a creator – including God himself. We cannot have it both ways. To say that is a contradiction – a self-invalidating double-standard, like speaking of a round square. I have read one clever apologist attempt to defend this contradiction and double-standard with the following words.
“By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2). He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter. This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause, and is the ultimate creator. This eliminates the infinite regression problem.”
While it is a clever rationalization to simply invent the idea of a “timeless” and “uncreated” being for convenience to justify our desired beliefs about reality, and create an “answer” within our limited view of reality when in truth we do not have one, this does not make the notion of such a being true, factual, or correct, just as a Leprechaun does not exist simply because I can imagine such a being exists. This application of a double-standard by saying all things require a creator except for the creator itself is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as “special pleading,” defined on the Logically Fallacious website as follows.
“Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.”
As we discovered in our first question on the existence of God, such a notion of a “timeless” and “uncreated” creator is itself a contradiction because the idea of an “unlimited,” or “spiritual” being is impossible since only that which is defined and therefore limited within its attributes can exist. Contrary to the author’s words, this notion of God does not eliminate the “infinite regression problem” because there is no infinite regression problem to begin with. The only reason there appears to be a “problem” is because this apologist believes that time actually exists as an independent reality from our minds, when in actuality this is an illusion because what we call “time” is merely an invention from the human capacity to measure ever-changing appearances, and therefore has nothing to do with God. We create time through our measurement of change, but time has no reality outside our measurement of change, and is therefore an illusion.
A more appropriate illustration for the reality of the universe is to think of it as an unending circle, instead of thinking of it as a finite line, as expressed within Christian theology. The notion of “infinite regression” presumes the universe and all within it is linear – that it is a line with a beginning and an end, instead of a circle with no beginning and no end. The truth of the situation is nothing is ever created nor destroyed. All is, and All has always been, and will forever be. It’s as simple as that. That which comprises everything within the universe – consciousness, was never created because it is fundamental, as will be explored at length in the upcoming chapter, The Principles of Oneness. Consciousness has therefore always been and will forever be. What we call “creation” is merely the ever-changing, ever-evolving rearrangement of the same One consciousness. The reason the timelessness of consciousness is not the same as the double-standard for the timelessness of God is because consciousness is not a defined “being,” a “thing,” or a “force,” as God is traditionally defined, but is All. Consciousness is All, and being All is therefore universal and therefore not an individual “being” – even an “all-powerful” being like God. The universe itself is in truth, without time, and therefore, without space, as these things are merely illusions of ever-changing, impermanent appearances.
In a nutshell, that which all forms are composed of – consciousness, is the only “unchanging,” “timeless,” “eternal” if you will because consciousness is not a thing, being, or force, and therefore does not “exist” per say, but simply is. This is why a “transcendent” and “timeless” being cannot exist since only that which is defined and therefore limited can by definition exist, as stated previously. Consciousness – All, is without beginning and without end, while the forms this same One consciousness take on are not, since they are ever-changing. Therefore the belief in the permanence of any form whatsoever, whether it is an object, our egos, “souls,” “spirits,” or “God,” is an illusion and not true. This is where the apologist is confused. He confuses the illusion of form’s permanence with the truth of the permanence of the only which is manifest in countless forms – consciousness. An ice cube illustrates this point very well. An ice cube appears to be a “fixed” form, but when heat is applied, it changes into a puddle of water. The ice cube is not “destroyed.” It is changed. So too, when an ice cube forms as a result of water freezing, it is not “created.” It is only changed from one state to another. The essence of the ice cube – water, remains whether it takes on the form of an ice cube or a puddle. Consciousness is like the water – “permanent” and “eternal” if you will. The ice cube and the puddle are the forms of that water, which are ever-changing and impermanent. The water is “forever.” The forms of that water are not. Our egos are merely different forms of the same One consciousness, which is why they too, like the ice cube, are impermanent, clearly illustrating the reason why the notion of the “immortal soul” is untrue.
This same apologist goes on with more clever words to illustrate his point.
“Some may ask, “But who created God?” The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.”
While this apologist makes a clever attempt to rationalize his belief, this argument does not work because it is yet another contradiction and classic example of special pleading. If God is truly timeless, as this apologist claims God is, then God could never create time and space, because if God is himself beyond causality, then he could never bring about causality. He could have nothing whatsoever to do with time if he is beyond time. We once again encounter yet another double-standard in a failed attempt to “explain” the contradictory notion of a non-physical God interacting and affecting the physical world. On top of this, God could never come before or after anything if he is truly “timeless,” because what is timeless has no distinctions whatsoever of “before” and “after.” As we discovered earlier, time is the invention of the human capacity to measure change, not God. To even mention the notion of God coming “before time, space and matter,” and say he created space and time is to make God of time. It is to make God an ego, which Christianity readily admits it does, without comprehending the problems and contradictions it creates in doing so. What is truly “God” is not the limited, dualistic ego, as Christian theology states, but is instead and as stated previously, the Oneness of All.
Apologists almost always try to make their self-contradictory notions of God “work” by resorting to the logical fallacy of special pleading – a double-standard “logic,” in which certain standards apply to everything in the universe, but not to God, such as the notion all requires a creator, except for the Creator himself, as this apologist attempts to do. This fact alone proves the dishonesty and untruthfulness of their methods of argumentation, because as we will explore in more depth in the next chapter, all contradictions and double-standards are false. Again – contradictions are self-invalidating, which is precisely why they are false, as stated previously. What is true does not require special pleading and double-standard logic to demonstrate its reality. In fact, it is only what is not true that requires double-standard logic to “prove” its so-called “truth.” Whenever double-standard logic is applied in an argument, it is always false. If logic applies to one side of an argument, then it must also apply to the other side of the argument to be valid. If all things require a creator, then the creator also requires a creator. The only way the “uncreated creator” argument can work is to apply double-standard “logic,” which therefore invalidates the entire argument. There is only one logic which applies to everything since All is One, as we discovered earlier. Therefore, nothing is ever separate from creation and “creator,” for lack of a better word.
Once again, the apologist is confused by the illusions of time and space. He believes there is a distinction and separation between time, space, matter, and God as self-essential phenomenon, when in truth, nothing is self-essential and separate from anything else since All is One. The universe, the Oneness of All, is consciousness, One and undivided – period. If we are to say God creates time and space, then God must also be of time and space. The totality of the world of appearances, of self-essential entities and “fixed forms” is an illusion. What is One is All, but All, “God” if you will, is never separate from anything since All is ONE. Creation and the “creator,” for lack of a better word, are therefore One and the same. The universe is nothing more than a whole of consciousness, without beginning and without end, manifested in countless forms which are ever-changing and endlessly evolving.
That is why the notion of a separate “god” from his creation is untrue and absurd. Since All is One, then there is no such thing as a separate anything from everything else, as the forms within the universe are merely ever-changing appearances of the same One, nothing else, like multiple slices of the same one pie. The lack of perception of the Oneness of All, and the belief in the illusion of the permanence of specific forms, ego, is the beginning and the end of the utter failure of ALL apologists’ arguments. With awareness of the Oneness of All, EVERY ego-based notion of reality – the ideas of “self” and “other,” “creator” and “created,” all notions of essential separation, are one-hundred percent illusory and not true. The truth of the Oneness of All puts all of these clever, dualistic, self-contradictory, double-standard notions completely to rest. When all of these ideas are honestly looked at for what they really are, it is clear they are nothing more than defense mechanisms for the ego in its fight against facing the truth of its impermanence. This fact, combined with ignorance, are the only reasons why all of these nonsensical notions are invented and defended to begin with. They exist for the ego, created by the ego, to perpetuate the lie it has permanence, when it never does.
Obviously, the only view of reality which does not contradict itself is to say nothing which “exists” requires a “creator” at all because in truth, All, which is nothing more than consciousness, has always been and will forever be, without beginning or end. The Universe is essentially nothing more nor less than a manifestation of consciousness. Energy is a manifestation of the interplay of consciousness and change, as we will explore in detail in the chapter, “The Principles of Oneness.” Energy includes matter, which is simply another manifestation of energy. Matter and energy are the same. Consciousness is the aspect of All which includes structure, form, and order, which is manifest in everything within the universe from the simplest organism to the most complex. With this understanding, the notions of “intelligent design” and other creationist theories are completely irrelevant because the universe and all within it is consciousness itself, as we will again explore in the upcoming chapter, “The Principles of Oneness.” Consciousness is present within every single aspect of the universe, an inherent aspect of All. Natural selection, the “weeding out” of that which fails in favor of that which succeeds within these infinite manifestations of consciousness, is how the universe and our world as we know it came to be, not by a god who “willed it” into existence out of nothing, and pronounced it “good.” From nothing, only nothing is possible. That is why All has always been and will forever be. The notion of a separate, self-contained, self-essential “god” who is the creator of all things is like a round square. It is a contradiction, and therefore does not exist.
All must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to get to Heaven, while those who do not “believe” or accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will be condemned to Hell: There are so many problems and contradictions with this belief, it is difficult to know where to even begin. First of all, we have previously established the fact that the self, the ego, the notion of permanent, self-contained, “separate beings” is ultimately an illusion. That is to say, there is no such thing as a “self-essence” or “soul” because All is One and inseparable. Since all is of one essence, there can be no “individual essence,” as to think so would again, be a contradiction, like a round square. Even the verse from Ecclesiastes 9:10 speaks to this fact.
“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.”
And again from Genesis 3:19.
“…for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
It makes you wonder why the notion of a “soul” exists at all when the very notion of a soul is absent in these famous passages from scripture. To later introduce the concept of the soul, as in the famous John 3:16 passage, in which Jesus promises eternal life to those who believe in him, is a contradiction to the words of the Old Testament, whose law Jesus himself said would apply until “heaven and earth disappear,” and not negated by him, as we will investigate later.
Since there is no such thing as the individual soul, then there is no “thing” to be “saved.” The notion of a “soul” is merely an egotistical projection of the hope our mortal selves with our collection of memories and relationships will never die, and our fear of losing our self-identity and relationships. This notion of “salvation” is completely selfish, childish, and entirely egotistical, as it is all about “me.” It is all about my soul, my salvation, my standing before a “just” and “holy” god, with my ego getting to “live forever” in an “eternal reward” for good behavior and/or believing in the “right things.” The consequences of believing in this egotistical notion of salvation are endless. We hurt, kill, threaten, shun, coerce, and destroy others who do not share our beliefs, attempting to “convert” others through coercion, creating “Hell” on Earth through our own ignorance. The Crusades and Inquisitions are perfect examples of this, but even the less extreme examples of modern-day Christian fundamentalism with their anti-homosexual, anti-intellectual, religiously intolerant ways is a contradiction to the notion of a God of “love and forgiveness,” and is reflective instead of a god of ignorance and stupidity. And by their fruits, we shall know.
Also, the very notion of “vicarious redemption,” sometimes also called “imputed righteousness,” which is the idea someone else can be scapegoated so we don’t have to accept responsibility for our actions, is simply immoral since it undermines the very foundation of morality itself – individual accountability. This is perhaps the most damning reason of all why Christianity is not a moral worldview, since its central premise involves the immoral concept of vicarious redemption. I would have thought that most of us in our modern society would have thought the idea of the validity of human sacrifice to appease a god would have died with the ancient Mayans and Incas, and other ancient cultures with their religions and cults of our superstitious past, but it is amazingly still alive and well in modern Christianity. We would never deem it “just” to allow a person to serve a lifetime prison sentence for Charles Manson or the death sentence for John Wayne Gacy while letting Manson and Gacy roam free about the world to cause more mischief and bloodshed. This would be not only unjust, but incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to potentially thousands of others as well. Yet this unjust and immoral concept of vicarious redemption was approved by God long before Jesus, within the pages of the Old Testament when he allowed others to sacrifice an innocent ”spotless lamb” in their place for their sins – hence the term scapegoating. However, at the same time, the Old Testament even contradicts itself by containing at least three scripture passages which completely contradict the validity of vicarious redemption. From Jeremiah 31:30.
“Instead, everyone will die for his own sin.”
And from Deuteronomy 24:16.
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”
And from Proverbs 17:15.
“Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent – the Lord detests them both.”
To rebut these passages with the notion that Jesus’ death and resurrection invalidated the Old Testament, contradicts Jesus’ own words as recorded in Matthew 5:18.
“I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
And from Matthew 5:17.
“Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
So, for all those who would claim the Old Testament “does not apply” after Jesus, contradicts Jesus’ own words, which in itself creates a major contradiction within Christian theology about the supposed validity of vicarious redemption. We cannot have it both ways.
The reason the concept of vicarious redemption is false is because each action brings its natural consequence. We reap what we sow. The universe has its own natural “balancing” mechanism, “karma” if you will – or action and consequence, which is perfect and absolute, requiring no additional man-made “justice” or “payment” for “sin.” If we were to accept responsibility for our actions without “passing the buck,” life would take care of itself. But because we believe we can make things “better,” by creating our own notions of “justice” when we or others do not accept responsibility, we interfere with action and consequence, because of our egotistical need to control. In doing this, we inadvertently only make things worse, creating all kinds of mischief.
We are not asked to follow and accept an authority to be “saved,” as Christian theology claims, but to be controlled by those who hold the power of that authority, whether it be the church, a prophet, or Jesus Christ. If Jesus ever existed as a truly enlightened and aware human being, he would have never asked we follow an authority – neither him nor anybody else, because those who are about the truth know there is no authority, and the fact all notions of authority are nothing more than playthings of the ego to coerce and manipulate others to do their will. Knowledge of this truth is how we know much of the gospel record is false – particularly the exclusivist, authority-laden propaganda which pervades so much of the Gospel of John in particular. We cannot find truth by following an authority since doing so only enslaves us to another and requires belief. In knowing for ourselves, we do not need to rely on belief, and are no longer second-hand people, but people who are alive with the vitality of the knowledge of truth within. This is only possible when we come to knowledge of truth through our own investigations, not by simply believing in and following an “authority.” Authority following is enslavement. Knowledge for ourselves is freedom. No person who is truly dedicated to the well-being and freedom of another would ever require they follow an authority. They would instead encourage them to find truth within, through their own inquiry. But humanity has historically never been about true freedom. We claim to be dedicated to ensuring the “freedom” of others while hypocritically making slaves of others. We do this because the ego is so terrified of relinquishing control, it does whatever it can to perpetuate slavery. Through slavery, ego can maintain its need to control, not by finding freedom for oneself nor encouraging others to do the same. This clearly reveals what “god” humanity truly worships… and by their fruits, we shall know.
The truth is, nobody can take away our responsibility for our actions. And nobody can “buy” us salvation through the exchange of blood, money, or anything else. Salvation is not that cheap. Salvation is not about justification of the false self, but in awakening to the truth of self’s illusion, and the truth All is One. Nobody can “buy” this for us. Only truth can awaken to itself within each one of us. True salvation cannot be reduced to a mere “spiritual transaction” – a deal cut between ourselves and God. This entire notion as found in Christian theology is disgustingly unjust, untrue, lacking in awareness, and absurdly perverse. Even if we assume as a given all of the Christian notions of God are true, under such a belief, this entire human dilemma could have been much more easily dealt with than the way God handled it, putting himself and his creation through so much needless agony, suffering, and misery. All God had to do to bypass all of this nonsense, was use his perfection to make us “perfect” to begin with, without the ability to sin. That way, everyone, including God, would be happy, and this God of “compassion and love” would not have had to resort to becoming a mass murderer by almost wiping out the whole of humanity in a flood, and later having his son brutally tortured and crucified to satisfy his wrath over our inability to do what he made us incapable of doing in the first place. At this point, the numerous contradictions and mind-blowing absurdity of the Christian notions of God and salvation should be abundantly clear.
What is perhaps most shocking about the whole “vicarious redemption” notion in Christianity, is the way God exposes himself as being no better than his “fallen creation.” Instead of showing love and compassion to Adam and Eve for sinning, he condemns and tortures them with crops yielding thorns and increasing women’s’ pains in childbirth, then wonders why humanity becomes lost in sin and destruction after setting the example for us to not take responsibility for our failures, and to “do unto others as we have had done unto us.” God refuses to accept responsibility for his part in creating an imperfect, failed creation, and instead uses scapegoating, passing the guilt, blame, and punishment on someone else as a means of “salvation” by having his innocent son tortured and crucified, showing himself to be no better than Eve blaming the serpent, or Adam blaming Eve. So God’s brilliant “solution” to the problems of humanity is to do unto them as they did unto him – (an “eye for an eye”), completely the opposite of the Golden Rule Jesus taught to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Two acts of scapegoating, or two “wrongs,” do not make something “justified” or “right” as Christians have been brainwashed into believing.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with Judeo-Christian theology is the same problem which exists in all theologies which assume the notion of a “creator ego-god,” or a separate “supreme being” from his creation – it assumes the ultimate reality of the self, which is always illusion. Since the self has no lasting reality and is therefore illusory, then all notions of permanent “selves” or “beings” such as God, Satan, the soul, the saints, angels, spirits, apparitions and the like are all illusions and are therefore not true. As long as it is ego, and not the Oneness of All upon which all notions of reality and salvation are based, then we are utterly lost and delusional. This is why Christianity and Islam, among other ego-based theologies, are utterly false and untrue from top to bottom. All ego-based notions are by nature, a contradiction, because the ego is always two-sided, and is therefore not Reality. It is only in oneness where contradiction does not exist, because it is only in oneness where there are no “two independent sides” to contradict each other. This is Reality. True salvation is recognizing the truth we are not our limited, dualistic egos in need of preservation and justification, but the truth of our natures as the unlimited, egoless, Oneness of All.