"Religion is all profit. They have no merchandise to buy, no commissions to pay, and no refunds to make for unsatisfactory service and results.... Their commodity is fear. They blackmail their parishioners with threats of hell and damnation. These poor deluded people give them their hard earned money to save them from a hell that does not exist, and from eternal torment that was invented by the perverted minds of priests to rob the living and in addition, they are exempt from taxation! Insult to injury! Let me tell you that religion is the cruelest fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race. It is the last of the great scheme of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people. The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of dishonesty." [Joseph Lewis, "Ingersoll the Magnificent"]
Edited by Penny Church *Devout Catholics are more likely to show symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) than less religious people, a study has found. The finding adds weight to the theory that a strict religious upbringing may make people more prone to the psychological problem. OCD is an anxiety disorder in which people are persistently compelled to carry out ritualised behaviour in response to recurring thoughts which are often completely irrational. Researchers from the University of Parma in Italy have found that committed Catholics are more likely to show symptoms of OCD. The scientists compared people, such as nuns and priests who worked in the church, with committed lay Catholics and others with virtually no religious involvement. Each subject was asked to document mild OCD symptoms, such as intrusive mental images or worries. The more devout Catholics reported more severe symptoms.
"Christianity is an appeal to selfishness. It is a promise of a great reward in the future which is bought with faith, obedience, time, effort, and money in the present." [Unknown]
The Pope: "God's sales manager on earth ... An altar boy's wet dream."
One pope who definitely would have disagreed with the views held by Archbishop Pell and Cardinal Winning is Paul II (1464-71).
Petulant, effeminate and a practising homosexual , Paul would have jumped at the chance of being placed at the head of the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
It was well-known that Paul spent vast sums of church money on Mardi Gras-like parades, spectaculars, banquets and other "diversions of the Carnival".
He slept during the day and spent nights adorning himself with priceless jewellery and frolicking with his numerous boyfriends in the sumptuous rooms of the Vatican.
It was said Paul loved all things that glittered and wore a huge sparkling, jewel-encrusted tiara that "outweighed a palace in its worth".
Paul also was "into voyeurism and bondage" and liked nothing more than to watch naked men being racked and tortured in the papal dungeons.
It was said that during a particularly vigorous "session" on July 26, 1471, Paul died of a heart attack while being sodomised by one of his favourite boys ...
Alexander VI (1492-1503) has been described as one of the world's wealthiest men and "the most notorious pope in all history".
In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire said Alexander lived like a prince and held wild orgies involving men, women - even animals.
It was said Alexander liked to watch - and sometimes participate - as groups of men masturbated while servants "kept score of each man's orgasms".
"For the pope greatly admired virility," said Voltaire, "and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity."
After everyone was exhausted, Voltaire said, Alexander distributed prizes of cloaks, boots, caps, and fine silken tunics to those men who produced the most semen ...
Pope Julius II (1503-13) has been credited with introducing the Swiss soldiers who still guard the Vatican.
To Julius, "religion was not even a hobby" - but it appeared surrounding himself with attractive young men like the virile Swiss guards was.
Julius no doubt liked his guards' tights tight and their codpieces bulky.
Contemporary chroniclers described Julius as "a great sodomite" who "abused two young gentlemen, besides many others".
Famously, it was said Julius once committed "unnatural vice" with the gay sculptor Michelangelo, whom he had "pressured" into painting the Sistine Chapel ...
Leo X (1513-21) was said to have invited guests to lavish banquets with up to 65 courses at which little boys jumped naked out of puddings.
It was no secret Leo was "a lover of boys" who possessed also "an insatiable love of pleasure".
Like Pope Paul II, Leo loved parades and his passion was to travel around Rome at the head of a long procession featuring panthers, jesters, and a white elephant called Hanno - a gift from the King of Portugal.
Scholar Joseph McCabe said Leo was "a coarse, frivolous, cynical voluptuary, probably addicted to homosexual vice in the Vatican".
Leo spent much of his childhood in numerous abbeys which, like many monasteries since the time of Leo III (795-816), had become homosexual haunts.
Even before he became pope, Leo X allegedly had been a practising sodomite.
On the day of his election, Leo suffered from chronic ulcers and had to be carried into the conclave on a stretcher.
Not a few remarked that the ulcers had been caused by his "boyish predilections" ...
Julius III (1550-55) was said to have been a typical Renaissance pope in that, like Alexander VI, Julius II and Leo X, he loved banqueting, spectacles and other sensual pleasures.
Gay and incestuous, Julius took as his lovers both his bastard son, Bertuccino, and his adopted son, Innocenzo del Monte, whom he had picked up in the streets of Palma.
This caused a grave scandal especially when Julius made the 17-year-old Innocenzo first a cardinal and then head of the Secretariat of State ...
It was said Benedict IX (1032-44; 1045; 1047-48), like Alexander VI, hosted lavish homosexual orgies and "manifested a precocity for all kinds of wickedness".
He was described as "a demon from Hell disguised as a priest" who turned the Lateran into the "best brothel in Rome".
Being the youngest pope to have ascended the throne - Benedict was 12 on his election - it appears the position went to his head.
He lived like a Turkish sultan and expressed his sexual leanings by having sex with men, women and animals.
The Catholic Encyclopedia described Benedict as "a disgrace to the Chair of St Peter".
Such depths of degradation were reached under Benedict's rule that, at age 23, an attempt was made to strangle him at the altar during mass on the feast of the apostles ...
The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Boniface VIII (1294-1303) that "his pontificate marks in history the decline of the medieval power and glory of the papacy".
A cardinal once said of Boniface: "He is all tongue and eyes, and the rest of him is all rotten".
The pontiff's most famous remark on the subject of homosexuality was that "it is no more a sin than to rub your hands together".
Boniface should know: he had at least two gay lovers - including Giacomo de Pisis and Guglielmo de Santa Floria ...
In 836, the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle openly admitted that, following the rule of Pope Leo III (795-816), homosexuality was rife in many monasteries.
The situation was so bad that, before becoming a bishop, priests were asked whether they had sodomised a boy, had fornicated with an animal or had committed adultery.
It was not stated whether the applicant had to answer yes or no in order to be consecrated ...
In an effort to clean up homosexuality within the church, reformer St Peter Damian (1007-72) published a book called Gomorrahianus, or a Diversity of Crimes against Nature.
"A cleric or monk who seduces youths or young boys or is found kissing or in any other impure situations is to be publicly flogged," he said.
When Damian tried to persuade Leo IX (1049-54) to expel homosexuals from the clergy, Leo flatly refused.
"If he got rid of the gays," said Nigel Cawthorne in his Sex Lives of the Popes, "perhaps he feared he would have had no one left ..."
The eminent German historian Leopold von Ranke dismissed Clement VII (1523-34) as "the most disastrous of all pontiffs". He was described as a "sodomite" who had a taste for the exotic.
The Italian historian Gino Capponi said Clement kept as a paramour "a Moorish or mulatto slave".
Another chronicler observed Clement surrounded himself with pageboys whose jackets, under his rule, went from traditional knee-length to mid-buttock, "or even worse" ...
The Catholic Encyclopedia described John XXIII (1410-15) as "utterly worldly-minded, ambitious, crafty, unscrupulous, and immoral, a good soldier but no churchman".
In 1414, John was summoned before the Council of Constance accused of 70 crimes including sodomy, rape, incest and the murder of his predecessor, Alexander V (1406-10).
The Bishop of Salisbury, Robert Hallum, spoke for the majority of the Council when he said John "ought to be burnt at the stake" for his crimes.
Instead, the convicted sodomite was deposed where, in true church tradition, he later appeared as Cardinal Bishop of Tusculum before becoming Dean of the Sacred College in Rome ...
Sixtus IV (1471-84) was described as a man who "embodied the utmost possible concentration of human wickedness".
He "lowered the moral tone of Europe" when, in 1478, he issued a papal bull sanctioning the notorious Spanish Inquisition.
Of his personal life, it was said Sixtus was gay - or at least bisexual - and "very probably engaged in incest".
Sixtus made six "nephews" cardinals and was renowned as a "bountiful benefactor towards whores ...".
It has been said that where standards are high, double standards are higher - and nowhere is this more evident than in the church.
Throughout history, popes and priests spent their days railing against sodomy while nights were spent buried between the thighs of their favourite boys or brothers ...
It was not that long ago when gays outside the church found themselves being lowered naked on to a red-hot spike in a torture known as the chambre chaufee.
This was the church-approved method for interrogating homosexuals until 1816.
And it was not that long ago when gays were tied upside down, spread-eagled, while their bodies were sawn through slowly to the navel.
An inverted position ensured oxygen reached the brain so the victim remained conscious throughout the ordeal.
This position meant also that, as life ebbed away, the "sodomite" could look into the eyes of the priests and church leaders who not only condemned him ...
But who returned to their own male lovers after the poor unfortunate's death ...
For other accused or convicted gay church offenders, see: Australian Church Offenders Register.
References to Jesus of Nazareth in Ancient Non-Christian Literature Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the writings of Josephus and on pagan writers. I have omitted discussion of references to Jesus in the Talmud and other Jewish religious writings, as well as the gnostic Christian texts. While these writings are themselves important, they tend to contradict New Testament accounts, and so are seldom cited by Christian apologists.
Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been changed by unscrupulous copyists. Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in interpreting material.
A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For example, Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign. Likewise, Josephus' account of first century Palestine devotes much more attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.
Finally, some comment must be made on the issue of "independent confirmation". Even if a reference to Jesus in a text is authentic, and not a later Christian insertion, that text may not provide any new information. For instance, if a writer is merely repeating what he was told by Christians, who in turn derive their information from the New Testament, then the text in question does not provide independent confirmation of the New Testament, as the claims involved are ultimately derived from the NT. An example of what might constitute independent confirmation would be an eyewitness account by a non-Christian author, or an entry in a Roman legal document. These sources would presumably not be mere repetitions of what Christians believed to have happened, but instead might offer actual independent confirmation.
I am indebted to Michael Martin's "The Case Against Christianity" for much of the information presented here. While I disagree with some of Martin's conclusions, his work presents a starting point for consideration of the sources. I am particularly thankful to the following alt.atheism readers, who contributed both information and criticism of this work: Geoff Arnold, Ray Ingles, Jeff Lowder, James Lippard, Jim Perry, mathew@mantis.co.uk, worley@cs.ucf.edu, joonasms@evitech.fi, and kbraatz@delphi.com. Any errors in this text are mine, not theirs.<>p>
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:
1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.
Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:
"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.
Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:
"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text. The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:
1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion. 2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage: "so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1) Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much. More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:
1. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
2. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
3. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.
Tacitus and Jesus In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)
Two questions arise concerning this passage:
1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.
Suetonius and Jesus In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)
Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:
1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
Thallus and Jesus In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.
Pliny the Younger and Jesus Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.
"Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the
sky who watches everything you do.
And there's 10 things he doesn't
want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of
fire until the end of eternity.
But he loves you! ...And he needs
money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"
[George Carlin, on Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997]
Religion is an insult to human dignity.
With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things,
but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (physicist and Nobel Laureate