Why the Bible is a Pack of Lies

The reason you know the Bible is simply a pack of lies is because truth can never be expressed in words. This is illustrated by the fact that Jesus never wrote anything down, for example.

And the only way a person can learn this is by first unlearning everything religion teaches (i.e. indoctrinates) a person to "believe," in order to necessarily hide every truth. 

Every lesson from religion, as such, is as much a lash that scourges the body of Christ - if by "the body of Christ," we mean humanity as a whole - as it is an offense to truth itself. 

The "sin" that Christ was crucified for, in other words, was the sin of being human, of which every human being is born equally condemned and guilty. And as I have said before, if nature comes from God, religion comes from the devil. And who is "the devil"? All those who seek to control others, especially those who claim to speak with the authority of God, and pretend their "beliefs" are the same as truth.

We only ever hold onto our "beliefs" as a means of finding security and certainty, however, even though having "faith" is exactly the opposite of this. Having "faith" does not give a person a feeling of security or certainty, but instead gives a person the courage to face insecurity and uncertainty. 

Today, of course, most people conflate "beliefs" for "faith" just as much as they conflate their "beliefs" for truth.  But in the same way that a "belief" is the opposite of a truth, so a "belief" is also an attempt to find security while faith is the courage to embrace insecurity. 

To have such security, the "believer" accepts whatever the priest or pastor tells them, passively, as if they were in a trance; as if they were being lulled into a hypnotic state; as if they were watching a television commercial. Enlightenment, on the other hand, comes with the heavy price of necessarily challenging every idea, every sacred "truth," every religious claim, every bulwark of the status quo. 

To be "like Christ," then, is not to accept "dogmas" and sacred traditions out of respect or deference to by gone days and the ideas of the dead, but to challenge every claim of every Sanhedrin and have the courage to live in a constant state of change. One the one hand, then, it is to be like Buddha when he said, "Monks and scholars must not accept my words out of respect, but must analyze them the way a goldsmith analyzes-gold by cutting, scraping, rubbing, melting." And on the other hand, it is to be like Confucius, when he said that the one who would be constant in happiness must frequently change." Put another way, to be alive is to be ever growing like a tree, turning and twisting in all directions, while to be religious is to be as dead as a cross and set at angles agaisnt oneself. 

The Christian who passively drinks the wine flavored cool-aid on Sunday is not awake, but is doing everything in their power to remain asleep, locked inside the tomb of a dead letter gospel, in order to avoid the cross of truth. They seek not truth, but security, and they follow not God but good sensations and public acceptance.  

As such, the whole point of religion, and indeed the whole point of the Bible and of weekly service, is to convince people of the virtue of seeing what is not there, and of denying even unto their own death, what is. Martyrs do not die for truth, in other words, but always die defending their "beliefs" instead, agaisnt the truth. That' why Jesus, like Socrates, died as a heretic, not a martyr.   

Every new idea starts as a blasphemy,  as Bertrand Russell pointed out, and every martyr dies defending the ideas of his preferred religion.