i dont know how much hate can come from one man. dosnt the bible say treat your
neighboor as you want to be treated? and whats with all the porn on the 'kidz
site'?!!? its disgusting!    and masterbation is definately NOT linked with crime, i
masterbate all the time :) its fun, screw you ^_^

iam i glad i live in germany people like you have no chance here
  gott sei dank
  and i hope that god punishes you

id like to thank you for the humour of your site.
 
i like the term 'fag'
i call all my fellow gays a fag.
 
also, your artwork - just genius.
 
but i think you may need to do a bit of research.
 
we don't all have aids.
There is such thing as protection. and we do have brains to use them. male or female.
 
and also, I think eating faeces (which you spelt wrong as 'feces' on your site) is
something pretty much everyone frowns upon (except those with the odd fetish).
 
it's nice to see you're educating kids though, as the population of fags seem to be
rising more and more in this modern day. Which you probably need to get used to
really.
 
 
Also, maybe an investment in photoshop would be good.
 
But anyway, let me know if you get any updates. I do like a good laugh :)
 
See you in hell
and look forward to a response :)

You're a Idiot

Short Sweet To the point...

rednecks...   Arkansas... 

Look there is no freakin god. There was no god when religions were bieng created. It
is a fragment of your imagination!

I jus wanted to let you know that I'm praying for you.  I feel as though you may
have misinterpreted a few things, but I know that God will sort it out in the end.

Hi,

I was just wondering about your beleifs.  Do you try to follow the original 
teachings of Christ and the bible as much as possible?

Only, I thought that this:

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

was King Richard 2nd translation.  Was the original translation not "Thou 
shalt not suffer a poisoner to live?  I thought it was changed to his liking 
diuring the burning times to encourage people to kill the Witches.

Just interested i nyour thoughts on this...

Sid

In my opinion the "under god" controversy that you stated are completly wrong...

We have something called the Seperation of Chruch and State which phohibits church
related things in government. Our fore fathers did not put that in the Pledge of
Allegence, Dwight Eisenhower put that in the Plege in the 1950's. Learn your
history!

im not sensoring you but YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES and you should b ashamed of
yourself and you have stained the christian religion with your bullshit you should
all slit your jugular veins open :) have a nice day faggots

Okay so i have a lot of things to say since i hope to graduate highschool being a
science major. First of all, theres no real proof that the bible is even real. Im a
Roman Catholic and i do go to church (when my mom makes me). Ive tried to read the
bible once but i thought it was a load of crap and intensly boring. Im not sorry if
this offends you, because to be quite frank, i dont care. If it wasnt for science,
we woudnt have the brains and technology we have today. So instead of blaming
science for everything, why dont you blame your religion or the "precious' bible.
Without science, we wouldnt be finding the cure of cancer, we wouldnt have the
medicine and cures that we have. You could be dying, and because of science they
could treat you. So if your going to blame science for everything dont go to the
doctors, because then you would just make yourself look bad since you hate since so
much right? I think that you need to re-think your philosophy. Without science you
 could have all of those diseases that they have in Africa, oh but you wouldnt be
treated because SCIENCE IS WRONG. 
   
   
   
   
       This is a different perspective on things. I have never read a bible, and I
don't plan to. I'm not religious and I've never been to church. I don't want
to. I'm not baptised and religion is a load of crap to me. 
       First of all, after dinosaurs stopped helping humans and started eating meat,
as you say it happened, why didn't they eat us all??? Why would dinosaurs
help humans? And no, sharp teeth are NOT for chewing veggies. Sharp teeth are
used to cut meat. M-E-A-T. Rounded teeth, as in molars that VEGETARIAN
animals have are used to eat veggies. If you don't believe me, try eating
food with only your front teeth. You can't do it efficiently. 
       If you believe that Earth is only 6 thousand years old, and that the bible
was there the whole time, then wouldn't Jesus have to be born before the
bible was written? The bible wasn't written until after Jesus died. 
       If the bible says that Adam and Eve came before everyone, then wouldn't there
be just them to populate the earth? That's incest.
       Also, if you're going to believe the bible word for word, then think about
this. The bible was written after Jesus died, right? Adam and Eve were alive
BEFORE Jesus. So, how can that be true? It can't. Unless the people who wrote
the bible were lying. Jesus would have had to have been alive at the start of
the world in order for your beliefs to be true. There would have to be
dinosaurs around that time also. Adam and Eve would also have to be there at
the same exact time for everying the bible says to be right. So, Jesus, Adam
and Eve, and the dinosaurs were all around at the same time? No. Because then
that would make your argument false. Which it is.
      I wasn't around when the world started. Nobody knows why we're here. People
evolved from one-celled organisms somehow. Natural selection took its course.
A meteorite hit the earth and wiped out all the dinosaurs. Mammals came to
inhanbit the world. Humans evolved because some of our ancestors ate meat and
then decided to hunt for themselves. Town and citied grew where people could
trade their goods. Kingdoms and dynasties and republics grew all around the
world. Jesus was alive during the time of the Romans most likely. I'm not
saying he wasn't alive, but he did say that he was just a man like anyone
else. The world cannot be only 6000 years old because too much has happened
for that to be true.
   
  I don't believe that God went poof and people suddenly appeared. 
  I don't believe that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
   
   
   
   
  Oh yeah, if science is all wrong, then you should just go live naked outside in
the mud. Science has given you what you have now.

Dear Pastor Jim,

Maybe you made a small mistake
Your email Jan part1 and Jan part 2 are both the same.

Alle the best!

Zigl

you are the people who give christians  a bad rap.... your going too hell 
because you're a little cocksucker... so how bout you go and suck someones 
dick or something rather the waste the planets air....

Since you are obviously big on the "freedom of speech," surely you wont object to my
saying a few words. Just to let you know, I'm not going to make any attempt
whatsoever to shut down your site. But I am going to say that there is a LOT that I
object to. I know, you will probably respond with something along the lines of "if
you didn't agree with it, then don't read it." I was simply trying to see what other
people thought was "true" and I found your site. I suggest that you take another
look at Matthew 7:1, and recheck your thinking. God, the one TRUE GOD said that you
should not judge, or you yourself will be judged. With your sites against Athiests,
mormans, "fake christians" you have no right to say that they will go to hell. It's
their decision, not yours. Flat out saying "YOU WILL GO TO HELL" without getting to
know them, is completely unreasonable. If you even thought of taking the time to get
to know the person, you might make them actually believe. 
  I know many people of all religions. Are you saying that I'm not a christian,
because I hang out with them? 
  Matthew 5:43 says to love your neighbor as yourself. Not just people of the same
religion. Just because someone believes a little differently than you do, doesn't
make them a bad person. I'm sorry, but it's not right to believe so. 
  Against your "Anyone who says God is love is a moran:" You should realize that God
is Love, just because he is a jealous God doesnt mean that he's not love. He is.
JOHN 3:16. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD. He loved the world enough to send his son
to have people like you believe that you have the right to delare what is right or
wrong. Personally, I think you're an asshole, excuse me for saying so. 

Before you discard this as more hate mail, read if you will.

A lot of the things that you have said are more opinion than fact.  I consider
myself furry, but taking part in sexual intercourse with an animal is not something
that I would ever do.  I am also a follower of the Christian faith.  I go to Church,
read my Bible, and have discussions with God in prayer.  

Did you pray before you posted your "Information"?

I am a writer, a novelist, and I pray to God before I start writing anything.  

Perhaps, Herr Doctor, you should consider taking anti--Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder medication, hmm?

Danke!

I know that you are actually saying what the Bible says, but I am in awe by
your brilliance. You have so succinctly and successfully said what I have
been trying to explain to my "Christian" friends for so long. You see, I
used to live in Texas. In Texas, there are many hypocrites, heretics, etc.,
AKA Christians. They always pissed me off, never being able to see the flaws
of their arguments. I would really appreciate if you continue your genius
work, and would also love a response, knowing that you got this.

You have inspired me to uninspire Christians!

Thank you!

Just though you would like to know that me and some friends made a pardoy 
myspacer of the "fat bitch" in your hate mail section.

Link :  http://www.myspace.com/thehugemac

Hey Jim,

Remember when I told you that you were a couple of sandwiches short of
a picnic? Well, I think you found those two sandwiches and can now have
your picnic!

John

Hey, just joking dude, your website gives me my laugh of the day. Keep
up the good humor!

Please remove my previous email from your archives, i do no longer want it
to be publically displayed.  It was sent from this email address in april
of 2006. Thanks.


-Cameron 

K, so i just have a few things to say! First, who are you to choose what  god 
feels is right or wrong, remember "let he who not sin cast the first stone"  
and sorry buddy, EVERYONE sins you are no different cause you are a pastor!  
Second, homosexuals,abortionists, and everyone else you stomp into the  ground, 
I do not believe any of those things are right, but, think about it  are you 
god? Didn't think so, are we just supposed to believe you, or trust you  know 
what's right?! I bet now I don't believe in god ...right? Well, I do!  I am a 
devoted Christian that actually listens to what god says and  doesn't assume 
things due to personal beliefs!

This is the funniest site i have ever seen on the net, its even  
better than the Church of Euthanasia site.  Keep up the good work and  
and thanx for the great furry smut best i"ve seen in a while.  Thanx  
again for the laughs.  good luck keeping the site open

wow, your site is ridiculous.  For your information, atheists don't believe 
in ANY higher power including Satan, thats what the A in atheist means.  
ALso, 75% of people in our prisons are christians.  And using a capitol G in 
God doesn't prove he exists, it proves that it is a name.  We use a capitol 
S when we write Santa Clause don't we?  Does that make him real?  ALso your 
myths about Atheists are untrue, if anyone, Religious people are the selfish 
ones.  Many, not all, only do good so they can get their reward an go to 
heaven.  They don't do good just because it is right.  When an atheist does 
good, he has no alterior motive.  Also, if your site is a joke, you got me, 
I bit really hard.

"Go to bed."

It seems to me that you having no intelligent answer means that you cannot 
defend yourself.

Emmet (again!)

you suck you retard! give up hose damn thoughts of you! you're doing the
same as you are saying they are doing to us! you say we have to believe you!
you say to believe a book! but have YOU written THAT book? NO! It's the same
as saying we didn't go to space! RETARD!

And another thing, you say go kill yourself, try suicide and stuff... the
bible also says suicide is wrong, you should burn in hell yourself because
you put people up to it! RETARD! and by the way, you say uck and what the
fuck a lot of times yourself! go jerk of some more!

and the video's about the furrys are cool!=D thx for the coo video's!

Your pictures are done in paint, it doesn't seem as if you can write that
well... Its hard to tell if this site is satire or not.
If this is real, than you need a site redesign, grammar lessons, and less
"Rawr believ in god or die"
If this is Satire, this is quite a horrible joke.
Please respond soon, I'd like some answers.
Thanks.

There is a glaring omission from your science page.  I am talking about the
"Germ Theory".  This theory originated in the 19th century at about the same
time as the theory of evolution.  It started when Semmelweiss observed that
wiccans (a.k.a. midwives) washed their hands before delivering babies.  The
male doctors at the same institution delivered babies without washing their
hands, after coming from the autopsy room.  The wiccans had Satan protect
their patients from the fever and death that were predestined to accompany
childbirth.  Semmelweiss tried to make the male doctors wash their hands
also, and they appropriately ran him out of town.  However, this practice of
handwashing was eventually adopted by misinformed doctors, as they also
adopted the theory of evolution.

In Mark 7, Jesus clearly states that handwashing (and other forms of
cleanliness) are to be avoided, since they are just traditions of the Jews.
Surely, if germs really existed, Jesus would not have said this;  being one
with the creator of all life, he would have known of their existence, and
that handwashing could control them.  To accept the germ theory is to either
deny the divinity of Jesus, or to accuse him of deliberately causing his
followers to injure themselves.

True Christians need to demand that their doctors stop washing their hands
before examinations and surgeries.  That way they will be able to meet Jesus
very soon.

someone has posted a letter on your site with my
name.


jason macza


people are finding it on google and telling me it's freaking them out. So, 
as much as a apricaiate the point that your site is making. I'm not sure if 
i want my name and email address listed like that.

I've read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and feel that yes. there is a 
probloem with faith in America

I originally had written a whole letter to you, several paragraphs long. But
as I was writing it and browsing around your website, I realized that
nothing I could say would get through to you, I'm sure. I'm sorry you are
the way you are.

Wow, I can see why you don't believe in evolution because you don't want to admit
that you haven't evolved. You say how all the atheists are stupid by using immature
cartoons that any 5 year old could make. Intelligence isn't determined by what
religion you worship or lack there of. The earth isn't flat which can be proven by
and eclipse, which can't be edited in photoshop. Stars differ in size... much like
brains. If this dragon is up in space, that would make it an alien, are you trying
to say that christian believe in aliens? Humans originated from dirt eh? Seems like
some still are dirt. You say bread is evil because of the yeast, then why did Jesus
turn stones into bread, and why do christian have the body of christ which is bread?
Ah yes killing people... well it's nice to see Jesus' message of peace and love
being taken to heart. 
You children's page is interesting in that children can't actually enter it while
being honest which is what you're "preaching." I thought there was trash on MTV and
Fox but your video section actually made me appreciate their shows. The whole Pi
equals three is flawed in that a cubit is the length of the arm from the elbow to
the end of the hand. That length differs from person to person.  Atheists don't try
to convert people, not all of them anyway. By accusing them of doing that you're
accusing them of something that you're blatantly doing. I've sat down with the local
christian minister and had a talk to him. I wont bore you with the detail because I
know your response will be along the lines of "he's not a real Christian," well he
is and you're not so save your breath. You said you got your Ph. D. recently, well
why don't you go and put it back in the cereal box that you got it from and get a
real one so that you can actually use your brain or what's left of it.


Mike Carter





I put the "fun" back in disfunctional
Please support independent music by visiting:
http://www.purevolume.com/soapboxpreachers
http://mike55964.tripod.com
http://www.myspace.com/68716207
http://www.soundclick.com/soapboxpreachers 
and/or
http://www.betarecords.com/soap.box.preachers

Support the arts!    If you see or hear some form of art that you like, do the right
thing and tell a friend to check it out.
 Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.

I just read your page on divorce - dude that was hillarious.  I fell out
of  chair.  "*If a woman is raped she must marry the rapist or go to Hell if
she chooses not to."*

Classic!!!  Thank you for a great website.  I need the humor today.


-- 
Thank you,
James

Quality website!

Keep up the good work!

So I was browsing through some sites on the internet and happened to stumble across
yours.  There are just a few things I'd like to bring to your attention, one of them
being the false information on your site, among other grievances.

Your site strikes me as being ignorant and rather rash.  Instead of ignoring the
opposition and utilizing words such as "stupid" with an arrogant attitude, it would
probably be beneficial to at least acknowledge the other side.

Your smart-ass attitude often times turns your readers off, unless they are as
ignorant and prideful as you seemingly are.  Perhaps some supposed beliefs that you
misconstrue to support your own ideas seem outlandish; actually, the way you stream
this information makes it undoubtedly sound ridiculous.  It's almost amusing to read
your supposed knowledge on the subject.

You'd be considered ridiculously more credible if you perhaps were an expert on the
subject, rather than making irrational decisions and opinions based on superficial
knowledge that you are obviously smart enough to make.

First of all, the Watchtower is not the "church."  The Watchtower is merely a
publication helping the witnesses and those to who they preach to understand more
fully and thoroughly current issues and the stance that witnesses take on them.

Second of all, yes, Witnesses do believe that only an anointed 144,000 will enter
into heaven.  Here is where your information necessarily must be checked if you seek
validity.  The 144,000 individuals already know who they are.  The rest of the
Witnesses do not seek ways to enter into heaven.  They accept their earthly
existence.  In no way does the Watchtower deem who is "worthy enough" to enter into
heaven.

Furthermore, Witnesses are not discouraged to read the Bible.  On the contrary, they
follow a suggested schedule of reading of the Bible that spans an entire year . 
Logically, that means that a Witnesses who follows this schedule read the Bible a
least 60 times, if that individual lived for 60 years as a Witness their entire
life.  It is impossible to argue that Witnesses are discouraged to read the Bible.

In fact, Witnesses conduct Bible Studies with themselves and those who are
interested.  Not only do they study the Bible on a regular basis, but other
publications delve into specific topics found in the holy writings.

As for the supposed wealth of the elders, that is another mistake in your scholarly
knowledge.  Unlike other Christian churches, it is not mandatory to pay the
organization.  Those who chose to do so are secure in their knowledge that their
donations go to beneficial projects that benefit the society worldwide.  Most of the
money goes to the building and renovations of Kingdom Halls globally, as well as to
the publications that every person, whether a Witness or not, has the opportunity to
enjoy.  Apparently, you have yet to visit these Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls and
other Witness establishments.  

Perhaps it was not the lack of factual information that irritated me the most.  It
was most likely the attitude of superiority that you express throughout your entire
site, as if your opinion holds more importance than any other person's.  It clearly
expresses your undeserved confidence and arrogance.  Before you offer up your
outlandishly superior knowledge on the subject, make sure you do your research.  It
could be slight possible that other people may believe you if you concede to the
opposition, then refute with what knowledge you believe to be true.

As your website stands currently, you are painfully in error.

So I was browsing through some sites on the internet and happened to stumble across
yours.  There are just a few things I'd like to bring to your attention, one of them
being the false information on your site, among other grievances.

Your site strikes me as being ignorant and rather rash.  Instead of ignoring the
opposition and utilizing words such as "stupid" with an arrogant attitude, it would
probably be beneficial to at least acknowledge the other side.

Your smart-ass attitude often times turns your readers off, unless they are as
ignorant and prideful as you seemingly are.  Perhaps some supposed beliefs that you
misconstrue to support your own ideas seem outlandish; actually, the way you stream
this information makes it undoubtedly sound ridiculous.  It's almost amusing to read
your supposed knowledge on the subject.

You'd be considered ridiculously more credible if you perhaps were an expert on the
subject, rather than making irrational decisions and opinions based on superficial
knowledge that you are obviously smart enough to make.

First of all, the Watchtower is not the "church."  The Watchtower is merely a
publication helping the witnesses and those to who they preach to understand more
fully and thoroughly current issues and the stance that witnesses take on them.

Second of all, yes, Witnesses do believe that only an anointed 144,000 will enter
into heaven.  Here is where your information necessarily must be checked if you seek
validity.  The 144,000 individuals already know who they are.  The rest of the
Witnesses do not seek ways to enter into heaven.  They accept their earthly
existence.  In no way does the Watchtower deem who is "worthy enough" to enter into
heaven.

Furthermore, Witnesses are not discouraged to read the Bible.  On the contrary, they
follow a suggested schedule of reading of the Bible that spans an entire year . 
Logically, that means that a Witnesses who follows this schedule read the Bible a
least 60 times, if that individual lived for 60 years as a Witness their entire
life.  It is impossible to argue that Witnesses are discouraged to read the Bible.

In fact, Witnesses conduct Bible Studies with themselves and those who are
interested.  Not only do they study the Bible on a regular basis, but other
publications delve into specific topics found in the holy writings.

As for the supposed wealth of the elders, that is another mistake in your scholarly
knowledge.  Unlike other Christian churches, it is not mandatory to pay the
organization.  Those who chose to do so are secure in their knowledge that their
donations go to beneficial projects that benefit the society worldwide.  Most of the
money goes to the building and renovations of Kingdom Halls globally, as well as to
the publications that every person, whether a Witness or not, has the opportunity to
enjoy.  Apparently, you have yet to visit these Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls and
other Witness establishments.  

Perhaps it was not the lack of factual information that irritated me the most.  It
was most likely the attitude of superiority that you express throughout your entire
site, as if your opinion holds more importance than any other person's.  It clearly
expresses your undeserved confidence and arrogance.  Before you offer up your
outlandishly superior knowledge on the subject, make sure you do your research.  It
could be slight possible that other people may believe you if you concede to the
opposition, then refute with what knowledge you believe to be true.

As your website stands currently, you are painfully in error.

GRRRR! Your not a Chritstian! No yura STOOPID idiot! As a pagan I hate you cuz you
are hateful! Didn't Jesus say something in da Bible about something? I don't need to
post da bbible verse cuz I dun read da bible, it got to much words fer mes! GRRRR!
Your not a Chritstian! No yura STOOPID idiot! I feel sorry for your wife an kids. I
hope you die thogh or somethin. As a pagan I am so mad! GRRRR! Your not a
Chritstian! No yura STOOPID idiot! once and for all. GRRRR! Your not a Chritstian!
No yura STOOPID idiot! Even I know your stupid and I hate you so much sicne you say
the racist word and you have penis on kiddie page. I'll pray for you. I hope you die
and go to Hell forever. I'll pray for you. I'm not hateful. you are. I hate you.

*************************************************************************************************************************
Origins of Christ

 I do think if you were intelligent you would notice this. Scroll Down

                                                      
             
                   
             David Pratt                                   Guest Writers            
   
                                          
---------------------------------
                                  The Origins of Christianity       by David Pratt
(September 2001)       
                             Divine confusion       Most Christians today believe
that the gospels of the New Testament       present an
essentially accurate account of the life of Jesus
Christ, the       'only-begotten Son of God', who was
born of a virgin, wandered Galilee as       a preacher
and miracle-worker at the start of the 1st century,
died on a       cross to redeem the sins of mankind,
and then rose from the dead three       days later and
ascended into heaven. However, the four gospels contain
      such glaring inconsistencies and contradictions
that they are clearly not       reliable historical
reports. So if they are the 'word of God', then God    
  must be terribly confused!       
    The Gospels of Matthew and Luke go to great       lengths to show that Jesus is
descended from the line of David, as the       promised messiah must be
according to Jewish beliefs. But apart from       agreeing that Jesus was
fathered by Joseph, the two genealogies bear no       resemblance to each other
at all; Matthew lists 28 generations and Luke       43. Furthermore, their
relevance is unclear since the authors of the two       gospels also say that
Jesus was born of a virgin who was impregnated by       the Holy Spirit.* The
Gospels of Mark and John, by contrast, make no       mention of Jesus' family
descent or the virgin birth.       
        
*The Holy Spirit was traditionally regarded as feminine.         Hence the wry
comment made in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip (25):         'Some said "Mary
conceived by the holy spirit." They are in         error. . . . When did a woman
ever conceive by a woman?'         
                  Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the       reign of
King Herod, who died in 4 BCE (before common era). But Luke      
states that Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius'
reign,       implying that he was born in 2 BCE, i.e. after
Herod's death. He       then contradicts himself by stating that
John the Baptist and Jesus were       miraculously conceived six
months apart in the reign of Herod, but that       Jesus was born
at the time of the census of Quirinius, which took place in      
6 CE (common era), thereby creating the miracle of a ten-year
pregnancy!       
    The Gospels of Mark and John do not contain any       nativity story, while the
nativity stories given by Matthew and Luke have       nothing in common except
the names of Jesus' parents and the location of       his birth in Bethlehem.
John however says that Jesus is from Galilee and       that the Jews rejected
him because he was not from Bethlehem. Only       Matthew mentions the guiding
star, the three wise men and Herod's murder       of all the infant boys in
Bethlehem, while only Luke mentions the Roman       census, the appearance of
angels to the shepherds tending their flocks (in       the winter?!) and the
shepherds' visit to Jesus.       
    Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in       Bethlehem, while Luke says that
they lived in Nazareth. Matthew says that       they fled to Egypt immediately
after Jesus' birth and then went to       Nazareth when Herod died, while Luke
says they remained in Bethlehem       following Jesus' birth so that he could be
presented in the temple of       Jerusalem eight days later. Only Luke mentions
Jesus' amazing exhibition       of learning in the temple at the age of 12.     
 
    The scene where Jesus drives the traders and       moneychangers out of the
temple is placed at the beginning of John's       narrative but at the end of
Matthew's. Mark has Jesus teaching only in the       area of Galilee and not in
Judea, and only travelling the 70 miles to       Jerusalem once, at the end of
his life. Luke, however, portrays Jesus as       teaching equally in Galilee and
Judea, while John's Jesus preaches mainly       in Jerusalem and makes only
occasional visits to Galilee. There are major       discrepancies regarding the
names of the disciples. According to Mark,       Matthew and Luke (the synoptic
gospels), Peter, James and John are Jesus'       closest followers. In John's
gospel, however, Peter plays only a minor       role and James and John are not
even mentioned, but there is mention of       Nathenael and Nicodemus, who make
no appearance in the other three       gospels.       
    Even the events surrounding the all-important       crucifixion are not
uniformly recorded by the gospels. Matthew and Mark       say that Jesus was
both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the       Sanhedrin, Luke says
that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin but not       sentenced by them, while
according to John, Jesus did not appear before       the Sanhedrin at all. Jesus
then goes to his death by crucifixion -- yet       Paul and Peter say he was
'hanged on a tree' (Galatians 3:13, Acts 5:30,       10:39). John places Jesus'
death on the eve of the Passover, whereas the       other gospels place it on
the following day. The story of a centurion       piercing Jesus' side with a
spear is found only in John's Gospel. The       gospels give three versions of
Jesus' last words: 'My God, my God, why       hast thou forsaken me?'* (Matthew
and Mark); 'Father, into thy hands I       commit my spirit!' (Luke); and 'I
thirst. . . . It is finished'       (John).    
   
        
*This is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. It should read:         'My God, my God,
how thou dost glorify me!' [1]         
                  In John's Gospel there is only one woman       visitor to Jesus'
tomb, in Matthew there are two, and in Mark three, while      
Luke writes of numerous women had who had followed Jesus from
Galilee.       According to Mark, when the three women disciples
found the empty tomb       they saw a young man in a white robe
inside, while Luke relates that 'two       men in dazzling
apparel' suddenly appeared. Matthew, however, paints a far      
more dramatic picture:       
        
         And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord        
descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon     
   it. His appearance was like lightning, his raiment white as snow. (28:2)
                 In Matthew the resurrected Jesus appears to his      
disciples in Galilee, where they have been sent by divine decree.      
According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, on the other hand, the     
 risen Jesus appeared in and around Jerusalem, and according to Acts the   
   disciples were expressly forbidden to leave Jerusalem. The earliest     
 versions of Mark's Gospel end with the fear of the women at their      
discovery of the empty tomb (16:8). The 'long ending' in which the risen   
   Jesus appears to his disciples, was added later but is now included in  
    nearly all editions of the New Testament. The last chapter of John's   
   Gospel, containing Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, is also a later
    
  addition. Luke's Gospel is the only one to include an appearance in      
Jerusalem in which Jesus convinces his disciples that he is not a mere      
phantom by inviting them to handle his flesh and bones and by eating a       piece
of broiled fish!       
    Matthew and John ignore the ascension of Jesus.       Luke mentions it only in
one brief verse, a sort of postscript not found       in some manuscripts, and
it receives an equally cursory mention in the       verses later added to Mark's
Gospel. Luke places the ascension on the day       of the resurrection, and Acts
40 days after (1:3). During his ministry,       Jesus repeatedly predicts that
the apocalyptic Last Judgement will occur       within the lifetime of some of
his contemporaries, but nearly 2000 years       later the Second Coming has
still not occurred, though some       fundamentalists continue to proclaim --
rather optimistically -- that 'the       end is nigh'!       

       
Reinventing the pagan godman       Although the unreliability of the gospels and
other early Christian       documents as historical sources is recognized by many
theologians, most of       them still maintain that an historical Jesus did live in
the early 1st       century, though opinions differ as to his alleged divine status.
However,       several recent scholarly books have concluded that the Jesus depicted
in       the gospels never existed at all and that, far from being a completely new 
     and unique revelation, Christianity originated as a Jewish adaptation of      
the ancient pagan mystery religion that had held sway for thousands of       years
[1].       
    The pagan mysteries were practised in different       forms by nearly every
culture in the Mediterranean and inspired the       greatest minds of antiquity.
Their primary aim was to promote moral       regeneration and spiritual
progress. At the heart of the mysteries was the       myth of a dying and
resurrecting godman, who was known by different names       in different
cultures: in Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia       Minor Attis,
in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. The       name
'Osiris-Dionysus' was sometimes used to denote his universal and       composite
nature.       
    All the following features of the story of       Jesus can be found in earlier
stories about pagan godmen [2]: he is       the saviour of mankind, the son of
God, born of a virgin; he is born in a       cave or cowshed on 25 December or 6
January;* his birth is prophesied by a       star and witnessed by three
shepherds; he is wrapped in swaddling clothes       and placed in a manger; he
is tempted by the devil; he is baptized; he       heals the sick, exorcises
demons and turns water into wine; he preaches       the gospel of love, charity
and forgiveness; he is surrounded by 12       disciples; he rides triumphantly
into town on a donkey while crowds wave       branches; his disciples
symbolically eat bread and drink wine to commune       with him; he dies at
Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world       by being hanged on a
tree or crucified; his corpse is wrapped in linen and       anointed with myrrh;
his empty tomb is visited by three women followers; 
      after his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from      
the dead and ascends to heaven in glory; his followers await his return as    
  the judge during the Last Days; through sharing in his passion, Jesus      
offers his disciples the chance to be born again.       
        
*There was a dispute in early Christianity as to when         Jesus was born. It is
interesting to note that Horus, Mithras and         Adonis/Tammuz were said to be
born on 25 December, while Osiris-Aion was         born of the virgin Isis (also
known as Mata-Meri or Mother Mary) on 6         January. Adonis/Tammuz was born of
the virgin Myrrha in the very cave in         Bethlehem now considered the
birthplace of Jesus.         
                  The passion of Baal or Bel of       Phoenicia/Babylon, as revealed
on a 4000-year-old tablet now in the       British Museum, shows
many points of resemblance with the later story of       Jesus:
Baal is taken prisoner and tried in a hall of justice; he is      
tormented and mocked by a rabble; he is led away to the mount; he
is taken       with two other prisoners, one of whom is released;
after he has been       sacrificed on the mount, the rabble goes
on a rampage; his clothes are       taken; he disappears into a
tomb; he is sought after by weeping women; he       is
resurrected, appearing to his followers after the stone is rolled
away       from the tomb [3].       
    The story of Jesus clearly shows a startling       lack of originality. Some
early Christians tried to explain this by       claiming that the pagan
mysteries were mythical precursors of the 'real       thing' -- the historical
coming of Jesus. Several church fathers, such as       Justin Martyr, Tertullian
and Irenaeus, even resorted to the desperate       claim that the pre-Christian
pagans had been inspired by the devil! A more       rational conclusion is that
the story of Jesus is simply a reworking of       the far older myth of
Osiris-Dionysus. No one believes the stories about       pagan godmen are
literally true, and relating the same events in a Jewish       setting hardly
turns them into historical facts.       

       
        
         Figure. This 3rd-century amulet shows a crucified figure whom         most
people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words        
name the figure 'Orpheus Bacchus' -- one of the pseudonyms of        
Osiris-Dionysus. The earliest known representations of the crucified       
 Jesus date from the 5th century. [4]              
           The pagan mysteries comprised outer mysteries,       which were open to
all, and secret inner mysteries known only to those who       had
undergone initiation [5]. The inner mysteries revealed that the story    
  of Osiris-Dionysus was not historical fact but an allegory encoding    
  spiritual teachings. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy explain:       
        
         Osiris-Dionysus had such universal appeal because he was seen as an        
'Everyman' figure who symbolically represented each initiate. Through      
  understanding the allegorical myth of the Mystery godman, initiates      
  could become aware that, like Osiris-Dionysus, they were also 'God made  
      flesh'. They too were immortal Spirit trapped within a physical body.
        Through sharing in the death of Osiris-Dionysus initiates
symbolically         'died' to their lower earthly nature. Through sharing
in his         resurrection they were spiritually reborn and experienced
their eternal         and divine essence. This was the profound mystical
teaching that the         myth of Osiris-Dionysus encoded for those
initiated into the Inner         Mysteries, the truth of which initiates
directly experienced for         themselves. [6]                  Far from
being a Christian heresy, the broad       philosophical tradition known as
Gnosticism was the
 original Christianity       which developed from the pagan mysteries. The gnostics
did not necessarily       deny the historicity of the gospel story of Jesus' life
as it was an       essential part of the outer mysteries of Christianity, which
were designed       to attract new would-be initiates. But any literal
interpretation of the       Jesus story was only the first step presented to
spiritual beginners,       while the inner mysteries revealed that it was not a
factual account of       God's one and only visit to earth, but a mystical story
designed to help       each of us become a christ by achieving union with our
higher, spiritual       self.       
    However, a rival literalist school of       Christians developed, which regarded
the Jesus myth as historical fact and       dismissed the idea of it having a
deeper meaning. The gnostic Christians       viewed such literalism as
superficial and simple-minded. Pagan writers,       too, launched scathing
attacks on the irrational beliefs of literalist       Christians, and denounced
Christianity as an inferior imitation of the       perennial philosophy of the
mysteries. The philosopher Celsus, for       example, dismissed the notion that
God could literally father a child on a       mortal woman as plainly absurd,
and described the doctrine of everlasting       punishment or reward as
'absolutely offensive'. In the late 3rd century       the pagan philosopher
Porphyry stated that promising any criminal that he       would be absolved of
his sins and enter paradise as long as he was       baptized before he died
undermined the very foundations of a society of      
 decent human beings. The gnostics regarded a literal belief in the      
resurrection as the 'faith of fools'. Even the 3rd-century Christian      
philosopher Origen dismissed literalist Christianity as a 'popular,      
irrational faith', and stated bluntly: 'Christ crucified is teaching for      
babes' [7].       
    Regarding the Roman Church's doctrine that at       the last judgement there
would be an apocalypse of fire in which all       non-Christians would be
consumed and the faithful physically resurrected,       Celsus commented: 'The
very fact that some Jews and even some Christians       reject this teaching
about rising corpses shows just how repulsive it is;       it is nothing less
than nauseating and impossible. I mean, what sort of       body is it that could
return to its original nature or become the same as       it was before it
rotted away?' [8]. Writing at the end of the 2nd century,       the church
father Tertullian admitted that the claim that a human could       physically
return from the grave was too incredible to be believed, but       the best
'argument' he could come up with was: 'It is true because it is       absurd, I
believe it because it is impossible' [9]. And this from a man       routinely
claimed to be a great Christian theologian! Celsus
 described       Christians as irrational, because they 'do not want to give or
receive a       reason for what they believe' but rather win converts by telling
them 'not       to ask questions but to have faith' [10]. Gregory Nazianzen, a
Christian       saint, put it very bluntly: 'Nothing can impose better on a people
than       verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire' [11].       
    The promise of Christ and the vital force of       Christianity require a
literal belief not only in the crucifixion and       resurrection but also in
the irrational doctrine of original sin [12]. We       are expected to believe
that a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and       loving God knowingly created
Adam and Eve so flawed that they       succumbed to temptation by the Devil
(another of God's wondrous       creations?!), and then took revenge by cursing
not only them but all       succeeding generations as well. Having created the
world badly in the       first place, he was only able to fix it by sacrificing
his own son, i.e.       part of himself, to an agonizing death. And thanks to
this act of blood       atonement everyone can now be saved and enjoy eternal
bliss simply by       believing in Jesus, while unbelievers, regardless of how
noble their lives       may have been, will suffer eternal torture in hell! Why
the shedding of       Jesus' blood would
 enable or persuade God to confer forgiveness of sin and       eternal salvation is
never explained. Blood sacrifices (of humans or       animals) are generally
regarded with aversion in modern society, yet this       primitive concept still
lies at the heart of the orthodox Christian faith       [13].       

       
Historically unknown       Few Christians are aware that there is not a single piece
of legitimate       historical evidence that the gospel Jesus ever existed. The
birth, life,       miracles, teachings and death of Jesus are not referred to by any
      historians of the time, despite the fact that the centuries surrounding      
the beginning of the Christian era were some of the best documented in      
history. Apart from Luke's Gospel, no historical sources mention the Roman      
census that supposedly required Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. In      
fact, a Roman census could not have been carried out in Palestine in the       time
of King Herod, for his territory was not part of the empire. Nor are       there any
independent historical accounts of the guiding star (which, very       unstarlike,
wandered through the sky and came to rest over the building       where Jesus was
born!), Herod's slaughter of the innocents, or the       dramatic events that
 allegedly accompanied the crucifixion -- i.e. three       hours of global darkness,
an earthquake and the rending of the veil of the       temple of Jerusalem,
followed, according to Matthew, by corpses emerging       from their graves,
including the resurrection of the saints and their       subsequent appearance to
many in Jerusalem!       
    The only Roman writers to mention anything of       relevance to the historical
reality of Jesus are Pliny, Tacitus and       Suetonius, but they were all
writing at the beginning of the 2nd century       and none of them mention Jesus
by name [1]. Pliny simply says that some       Christians had cursed 'Christ' to
avoid being punished. Tacitus mentions       that Christ was executed by Pontius
Pilate, but it is clear that he is       merely quoting hearsay information from
his own day. Suetonius states that       Jews were expelled from Rome around 49
CE because a man called Chrestus       instigated disturbances among them. But
Chrestus was a popular name, and       even if Suetonius really meant
'Christus', Jesus was never said to have       been at Rome, and certainly not
nearly 20 years after his supposed       crucifixion. Moreover, the authenticity
of all these passages has been       questioned.       
    Turning to Jewish historians: Philo was an       eminent Jewish author who lived
at the same time that Jesus is supposed to       have lived and wrote around 50
works that still survive. They tell us much       about Pontius Pilate, yet make
no mention of Jesus. Philo's contemporary,       Justus of Tiberias, wrote a
history that began with Moses and extended to       his own times, but again
made no mention of Jesus [2].       
    Josephus, on the other hand, a younger       contemporary of the apostle Paul,
wrote two famous history books, one of       which (Antiquities of the Jews)
contains two passages which do       refer to Jesus: one of them speaks of him
as the messiah, who was       crucified under Pilate and appeared to his
disciples three days later. For       hundreds of years these passages were
seized on by Christians as       conclusive proof that the gospel Jesus was an
historical figure. But more       careful scrutiny has shown them to be later
forgeries. Since Josephus was       an orthodox Jew, he would hardly have called
Jesus the messiah if the Jews       had really put him to death for blasphemy.
Origen explicitly stated in the       3rd century that Josephus did not believe
that Jesus was the       messiah. It was not until the beginning of the 4th
century that Bishop       Eusebius, the Roman Church's notorious propagandist
and falsifier,       suddenly produced a version
 of Josephus which contained these passages.       Nevertheless, given the lack of
any other serious, nonbiblical evidence       for an historical Jesus, some
Christian apologists still go to desperate       lengths to claim that the passages
in Josephus are at least partially       authentic [3].       
    The Jewish Talmud comprises an older stratum       called the Mishna and
additional matter known as the Gemara or       'completion'. The Mishna was
founded in 40 BCE and was edited and       amplified till about the beginning of
the 3rd century CE. It contains an       unbroken record of all the rebels
against the authority of the Jewish       Sanhedrin from 40 BCE to about 237 CE,
and provides a history of the       Pharisees, who allegedly put Jesus to death.
H.P. Blavatsky asks:       
        
         how is it that not one of the eminent Rabbis, authors of the Mishnah,      
  seems to have ever heard of Jesus, or whispers a word in the defence of  
      his sect charged with deicide, but is, in fact absolutely silent as
to         the great event? [4]              The Talmud does contain
references to a certain Jeshu, on whom the       gospel Jesus may partially
have been based, but one passage implies that       he lived about 100 BCE.
The Talmud certainly provides no support for the       historical reality
of a gospel Jesus living in the early 1st century.       

       
Forging a new religion       The only other evidence for the gospel Jesus is drawn
from Christian       testimonies, and in particular the gospels. There were
originally hundreds       of different gospels, not just the familiar four included
in the New       Testament. The four canonical gospels were accepted around the 4th
century       after much dispute and argument, all the rest being rejected as
apocryphal       or heretical. Some of the earliest and most quoted Christian texts,
such       as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of the    
  Hebrews, were excluded from the New Testament because none of them       contained
any reference to the quasi-historical story of Jesus.       
    Even the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and       John were all at one time or
another regarded as heretical. These gospels       are not eyewitness accounts
of the life of Jesus written by his disciples,       but later, anonymous works
that eventually acquired the names of their       supposed authors. The first
person to mention a fourfold gospel account of       the life and death of
Jesus, under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and       John, was Irenaeus
around 180 CE. The earliest versions of the gospels are       thought to have
been written between 70 and 140 CE, most likely during the       last 30 years
of this period [1]. However, they then underwent many       alterations, as a
comparison of over 3000 early manuscripts has shown. For       example, the
gnostic Marcion was using a Gospel of Luke around 140 CE       which did not
conform to our canonical text; chapters 1 and 2 are later       additions. The
last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel and the last
 chapter of       John's Gospel are also later additions. The church father Origen  
    acknowledged that manuscripts had been edited and passages added to suit      
the needs of the changing theological climate [2]. As already shown, all       the
revisions have done nothing to remove the major discrepancies in the       gospels.
      
    Although the four gospels are always placed       first in the New Testament,
the letters of Paul were written before any of       them and are commonly dated
at c. 50 CE. It is quite remarkable that       although Paul is widely regarded
as Jesus' contemporary, he never claimed       to have met him in the flesh or
to have met anyone else who had done so;*       he is concerned only with the
heavenly Christ, whom he encountered in       visions, and with the redemptive
significance of his death and       resurrection, which he never places in an
historical earthly setting. Paul       makes no mention of Jesus' virgin birth,
his ministry in Galilee or       Jerusalem, his miracles and teachings, or the
details of his passion.       What's more, all the earliest, pre-gospel
Christian epistles       display the same silences as Paul. It is only in the
2nd century that       Jesus begins to be linked with the time of Herod and
Pontius Pilate and       that further
 biographical details emerge.       
        
*Paul refers to John, James, and Peter/Cephas, who are         commonly equated with
the characters of the same name mentioned in the         gospels, having somehow
been transformed from simple fishermen into         learned scholars. However, Paul
says nothing whatsoever about them         having been Jesus' companions and
disciples, and the gospel tales did         not even exist when he wrote his
letters. On one occasion Paul calls         James 'the brother of the Lord', but
this does not mean he must have         been Jesus' blood brother as he was the head
of a community in Jerusalem         which called itself 'brothers of/in the Lord'.
Paul disagrees with         Cephas on various matters and condemns him in very
strong terms. But if         Cephas is the Peter of the gospels it is odd that Paul
fails to mention         that he had been rebuked by Jesus as 'Satan', had fallen
asleep in the         garden of Gethsemane and had denied his master three times
[3].     
    
                  The earliest gospel is commonly believed to be       Mark's, the
simplest and shortest, in which Paul's picture of Jesus as a      
mystical dying and resurrecting godman is given a historical and  
    geographical setting. Most of the details of the passion story
are taken       directly from passages in the Psalms and Prophets.
Mark's Gospel (or       rather an earlier version of the present
gospel) was then reworked and       embellished by the authors of
Matthew and Luke, with details of Jesus'       birth and
resurrection being added. This shows that they did not regard it  
    as a valuable historical record that must be preserved intact
or as the       inviolable 'word of God'. The Gospel of John, the
most mystical, is       remarkably different in style and content
from the other three. Due to its       strong gnostic flavour,
many 2nd-century churchmen were opposed to its       inclusion in
the New Testament. What worked in its favour, however,
 was       its insistence on the reality of Jesus' physical incarnation, in      
opposition to the docetic ('illusionist') trend in Gnosticism, which       regarded
Jesus as an eternal, spiritual being, untouched by the suffering       experienced
by his 'illusory' physical manifestation. Significantly, all       the gospel
authors betray a deficient knowledge of Palestinian geography       and of Jewish
rituals and practices [4].       
    Once an historical Jesus had been created, the       Acts of the Apostles was
written (150-177 CE) to account for his       disciples. It reads like a fantasy
novel, misquotes the Old Testament, and       contradicts Paul's letters. It is
now acknowledged to be largely if not       entirely a fabricated picture of
Christian origins designed to serve the       purposes of the Roman Church.
Finally, the Letters of the Apostles were       written (177-220 CE). Modern
scholars have shown that the letters ascribed       to Peter, James and John are
forgeries written much later to combat       heretical (gnostic) ideas within
the early church; they attack 'many       deceivers' who 'will not acknowledge
the coming of Jesus Christ in the       flesh' (2 John 7). Paul's early (and
mostly genuine) letters are full of       gnostic phrases and teachings, whereas
his later letters (the Pastorals)       are anti-gnostic, and are regarded as
fakes by all but the most      
 conservative of theologians. Forgery during the first few centuries of the      
church's existence was so rampant that the phrase 'pious fraud' was coined       to
describe it.       
    The evidence clearly suggests that the New       Testament is not a history of
actual events, but a history of the       evolution of Christian mythology. The
upshot of all this is that there is       no substantial evidence whatsoever for
the historical existence of the       gospel Jesus -- a man who is supposed to
have been the one and only       incarnation of God on earth. However, this does
not rule out the       possibility that the gospel Jesus was partly based on or
inspired by       actual historical figures, including the Talmud Jeshu [5].    
  
    In 66 CE Jews in Judea revolted against their       Roman oppressors,
culminating in the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction       of the temple in
70 CE. Some 600,000 people -- a fifth of the population       -- died from
violence, famine and disease. These events fuelled the Jews'       desperate
desire for a saviour, and gave impetus to the replacement of       Paul's
mystical, timeless Christ with a more accessible, pseudo-historical      
saviour who had supposedly lived on earth in the recent past. Such a      
figure would offer an alternative to the many disastrous revolutionary      
'messiahs', or 'zealots', who sprang up during the crisis.       
    The Therapeutae, a group of Pythagorean,       Essenean Jews, are mentioned in
one of Philo's books written in 10 CE.       They practised a Jewish version of
the pagan mysteries, believed their       myths encoded secret mystical truths,
and may have played a key role in       creating the Jesus myth, in which the
pagan godman is combined with the       Jewish messiah. The community lived near
Alexandria, which was a great       melting-pot of pagan and Jewish cultures and
became one of the main       centres of Gnosticism [6]. Ultimately, however, the
Jesus myth won few       Jewish converts since a messiah who was crucified as a
common criminal was       not the saviour they were waiting for. But it was
embraced by pagans and       gentiles as a new mystery cult. The fact that it
incorporated elements       from so many other sects and cults added to its
popular appeal.       

       
Bigotry triumphant       By the middle of the 2nd century, a battle was raging
between gnostic       and literalist Christians. The latter attacked the gnostics as
heretics       who had perverted genuine Christianity, whereas the truth is that    
  Literalism is a degenerate form of the original Jesus mysteries of the      
gnostics. In the face of gnostic insistence that the Jesus story was a      
mystical allegory, literalists asserted that Jesus Christ suffered and was      
crucified under Pontius Pilate -- a statement that was repeated with such      
fanatical insistence that it shows how weak the literalists felt at this       time.
The forged Second Letter of Peter, for example, defensively asserts       that
literalist Christians are not following 'cleverly devised myths'       (1:16)!      

    It was literalist Christianity that eventually       triumphed, thanks to its
adoption as the official religion of the Roman       Empire in the 4th century.
To endorse their claim of 'one Empire, one       Emperor' in the face of
increasing fragmentation, the Roman emperors       needed 'one faith' -- a
universal or 'catholic' religion. Roman leaders       flirted with various
mystery religions. For instance, at the end of the       2nd century Emperor
Commodus was initiated into the mysteries of Mithras,       another godman who
was miraculously born on 25 December. In 304, just 17       years before
Christianity became the state religion, Mithras was declared       the
'protector of the Empire'. Then Emperor Constantine tried       Christianity,
which proved a more ideal candidate:       
        
         Literalist Christianity . . . was a Mystery religion that had        
purged itself of all its troublesome intellectuals. It was already an      
  authoritarian religion which encouraged the faithful to have blind faith 
       in those holding positions of power. It was exactly what the Roman  
      authorities wanted -- a religion without mystics, the Outer Mysteries
        without the Inner Mysteries, form without content. [1]             
    At the first Council of Nicaea in 325 CE,       Constantine oversaw the
creation of the Nicene Creed, which is still       repeated in churches to
this day.* Christians who refused to assent to       this creed were
banished from the Empire or otherwise silenced, though the       church
continued to engage in political in-fighting thinly disguised as      
theological debate. After the 'Christian' Constantine returned home from   
   Nicaea he had his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately 
     remained
 unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his       atrocities and
still receive forgiveness of sins and a guaranteed place in       heaven by being
baptized at the last moment.       
        
*The Nicene Creed includes the following: 'We believe in         one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the         Father, God from God,
Light from Light, true God from true God,         begotten, not made, one in Being
with the Father. . . He will         come again in glory to judge th