Paul of Tarsus just made up a bunch of stupid shit and Rome called it Christianity

Thomas Aquinas concluded in his Summa Theologica that since access to heaven was an infinite gain that the evil committed to convert someone was justified and could not be excessive. The acceptance of this doctrine provided the church to justify mind boggling evil. And people that were determined to be impossible to convert like the Jews were going to Hell anyway and could be disposed of like human refuse to prevent them from spreading their heresies.

The Christian concept of Redemption according to Paul of Tarsus who wrote 80% of the New Testament also specified that the abuser didn’t need to recognize his debt to the victim, and that by following Jesus the forgiveness of God was all that was essential. And so the Catholic Church has always focused on the criminal priests and not the victims of abuse who’s lives were ruined.

These doctrines are not held up to scrutiny, are concealed and prove how evil Christians are in fact! 🎯


17 thoughts

  1. I am with you in how you dissect and dis Paul’s message. But why do you call homosexuality a sin? The bible’s mention of homosexuality is a badly translated command that is more likely to mean that men were not supposed to worship in a temple dedicated to a goddess than it was about them having sex. It also doesn’t mention lesbians, does it? But that aside, by what authority do you pick out your sins? If you want to take the bible literally you’re sinning in a hundred ways just by your everyday behaviour. If you don’t take the bible literally, what’s your hang up with homosexuality about? Who are they hurting? What wrong are they doing?

    I’m sorry, but in spite of all your cleverness in debunking Paul (kudos for you there), your small-mindedness in condemning homosexuality makes you a fool in my eyes.

    In love,


  2. I’ve got nothing against people because of what they are and I don’t think this video condemned homosexuals? Where did you get that idea unless you never watched it and then we have nothing to discuss until you do.

  3. It mentions a list of sins and places homosexuals in that list, next to thieves and drug addicts. Believe me, I have watched the whole thing and liked almost all of it. But that list came as a shock to me.

  4. That’s what I take exception to. The bible’s supposed anti-gayness is based on two very ambiguous sentences that got mistranslated several times to end up sounding like a rule against homosexuality. The oldest versions of those sentences seem to refer to men worshipping in temples dedicated to goddesses. Which was still very common in the time of Leviticus.
    People that claim that the Bible is anti-gay grossly over-emphasise the importance of those two sentences, while completely ignoring that – if taken literally – the bible is also anti-shellfish, anti-cripples going to church, pro selling your daughters to strangers, pro polyamorous marriages and pro raping your hand maiden to get children. I don’t see the same level of enthusiasm for those rules, though, as for condemning homosexuals as if they are committing the most heinous kind of sin imaginable.
    So, in summary, claiming the Bible is anti gay is the worst kind of cherry-picking possible.

  5. Ok partner so what do you want from me or Hagen then? He doesn’t have an anti homosexual bias and neither do I.
    I couldn’t care less what or who you entertain in your bedroom. If you don’t like the Christian position then argue it with a Christian.

  6. Hagen is the one placing homosexuality in a list of ‘sins’ he wants people to take responsibility for, including theft, drugs, rape, violence, etc. That riled me. If Hagen doesn’t condemn homosexuality, why did he put it in that list?
    Are you sure Hagen is not anti gay? I’ll take your word for it (I only have this video to go by) but then I would be happier if he didn’t include gays and lesbians in his list of sins.
    Anyway, I am glad you are not part of the anti gay parade. It’s good to have that sorted. It means we don’t disagree. We may just have a difference of understanding about one tiny moment in Hagen’s video. It’s important to me, but insignificant in the history of humanity.

  7. Well, I have tried to leave a message on his website. But the site seems to be quite flakey and keeps timing out on me, so I don’t know if he is actually getting my email.

    We’ll see.

  8. Absurdly stupid on multiple levels. The biggest thing showing this is a crock is the fact that Protestant pastors are just as likely to sexually offend; the Catholic priests DO NOT have a higher problem than Protestants, they just have more gay priests going after teenaged boys. Otherwise, sorry, but Protestant ministers offend just as much. And if you take it out of religion? Hooh boy, a public schoolteacher, juvenile prison guard, or foster home worker are ALL more dangerous as predators.

    Seriously, stop being stupid about Catholics. It helps nobody.

  9. Hi, Robert. I don’t necessarily have time to sit here and listen to Hagin’s full speech. Which specific passages are you referring to regarding your claim that, “..the abuser didn’t need to recognize his debt to the victim, and that by following Jesus the forgiveness of God was all that was essential.”

    Would you please cite those here, as well as which specific version of the Bible they are from? Thanks!

  10. The RCC is the source of Christianity and Protestant’s rejected much of the blatant paganism but kept the core doctrines.
    The Catholic Church is the continuation of the Roman Empire and that’s the evil truth.
    Go get yourself a noticeable brain and then come back.
    I won’t be holding my breath

  11. Came across this video about a year ago, I’ve long held that Paul subverted Jesus’ actual teachings and that modern Christianity became ruled by Paul’s false rather than what Jesus taught. Tackling this issue in my second novel now underway.

  12. This guy is ignorant beyond redemption. Leading, as he does, with asserting that “the people of the Bible didn’t exist”, that they are ahistorical, which as been archaeologically disproven in multiple instances, is so profoundly ignorant that whatever else he may have had to say has no value. He says he’s had divine revelation. Yeah, right. Having listened a few more minutes I have to conclude that he’s not just ignorant, he’s dishonest — a charlatan — purposefully misreading otherwise plainly stated scripture. Why does anyone pay any attention to this guy?

  13. Hagen is on the right path. It’s interesting also that the concept of Original Sin is nowhere in the bible and in fact was invented by St Augustus in the fourth century. This means that Jesus was a G-d fearing, Torah Observant Jew and was not a Christian himself!
    There are two versions of Jesus in the NT. One with Jesus as a G-d fearing Torah Observant Jew and the one invented by Paul of Tarsus that condemned the Jews and Judaism. The Christian church used the Jesus Version 2.0 as described by Paul. It’s also interesting that unlike Jesus Paul was actually a historical figure and the evidence is that he suffered his whole life from mental illness!…Temporal Lobe Epilepsy that accounts for his hallucinations, and delusions of grandeur! The invented of Christianity was completely and totally Nuts!
    If Paul belonged in a mental hospital, what about modern Christians?

  14. Paul upheld the Torah. It’s the ignorant who are quick to reason their own rebellion who say that the Torah was abrogated at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: