re to do to seek the kingdom of God, because many of his statements are conflicting.
It is true that religious leaders have sought to pick out and magnify certain parts of the Christian philosophy as a basis for attracting followers, but if they choose to minimize some of Christ's sayings, that is only an indication that they don't believe in them fully and, again the argument is presented that if one part of the book is fallible or false, or erroneous, the whole structure, including the claim of the existence of a Supreme Being, falls.
Had Christ wanted to expound a philosophy of the golden rule, and let it go at that, there could have been little criticism of his sayings, and had the whole Bible been based on the golden rule, the bloodshed and persecution of the ages might have been avoided.
Certainly it is not a very reverent act for Christ to tell one of his followers to let his dead father lie, -- "let the dead bury the dead" and, of course, this is a commandment which the churches do not follow, as there is a huge revenue for them in conducting funerals.
In one passage Jesus denounces the publicans and sinners, but in Matthew 9:10 he sits down and eats with them.
At one place Christ quotes the golden rule, but in Matthew 10:21 he says: "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death."
It is impossible to harmonize these two principles. At one place Christ tells his disciples: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another." But at another place he says: "Preach ye upon the house tops and fear not them which kill the body." What would a disciple do? Of course, this, like all of the Biblical injunctions, provide the followers with many "outs" or excuses to do whatever they want to do.
Christ's claiming to be the Son of God and the King of the Jews and boasting to John in Chapter 11:4, of the things that he had done, was the opposite of being meek and lowly, which he held up as one of the methods of getting to heaven.
Tolerance is not one of Christ's principles. In Matthew 11:20 he upbraids the cities where most of his work was done. He threatens many of them saying they "shall be brought down to hell."
If Christ, in person, was not able to influence these cities it speaks ill of his divine ability; and his then threatening the cities for not doing as he told them smacks of childish intolerance. Later Christ says: "For I am meek and lowly in heart."
In the 12th Chapter of Matthew he excuses his disciples for plucking corn on the Sabbath, but in other preachings he enjoins his followers to obey strictly the rites and rituals of the Old Testament.
Did Christ speak well of the people following his own commandment to speak well of people who spoke evil of them? No, in the 12th Chapter of Matthew he refers to the people of his times as "a generation of vipers."
Was it a sign of courteousness and friendliness when his mother and brother came to see him and he refused to recognize them, as related in the 12th Chapter of Matthew? Is it a philosophy of returning good for evil when Christ says of the people who did not follow him, that the Angels would come forth and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: "There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Throughout Christ's preachings is the threat of hell fire -- eternal hell fire -- for those who fail to follow him, but at the same time he exhorts his followers to follow the teachings of the rabbis.
Another example of childishness, suspicion, and petty hatred is Christ's cursing of the fig tree mentioned in the 21st Chapter of Matthew. Christ was hungry and when he found no figs on the tree he cursed it, that it might never grow fruit again. It is childish to curse inanimate objects, and the tree certainly did not know that it was expected to have fruit for Christ that morning. As it was not the season for bearing figs, what advantage would it be to anyone to spitefully cause the tree to be withered because it was barren?
In the 23rd Chapter