The Critique of Christianity (chapter 4): Christian-Political Catechism

IV. Christian-Political Catechism

/ „I'm not a grapevine branch, and you're not fish.” /

1. It is not hard to believe in God according to Monotheism, Polytheism, Panentheism or Pantheism, by understanding philosophical arguments or witnessing wonders. (Don't exclude the possibility of what can possibly be proven true, and don't believe what can possibly be disproven.) However, the essence of religions is not this, but instead, the real or supposed will of God and the opportunities offered by him, and also the image of the ideal state as the Kingdom of God, and preparations for its realization.

2. Good conduct in school, respect of the law, eco-friendly lifestyle and vote for social justice can be approached by Philosophy as the will of God. Religions, however, tend to approach even those parts of God's will and his opportunities which are harder to realize by thinking… such are the questions of eternal life, the causes of wonders, or the ideal form of state.

3. Religious communities may regard not only universal commandments as the will of God, but they can also include ethical commands that are only fit to the members of the given community. Thus, for the advantages of belonging to the community (as an opportunity), they have to make sacrifices, for example, according to the biblical Old Testament or New Testament (or „New Covenant”), and thereby increasing the chances of survival for the community. It is also possible that Sunnite Islam has to pray facing towards Mecca for this reason.

4. The source of Christian faith may be the Bible in its original languages, the unbroken traditions (like the Credo) of the Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic Churches, as well as the Orthodox, Coptic and other Eastern Churches (and maybe the Anglican Church), and all the historical sources and artifacts related to them, and History showing that God supported Christianity. If there were a lot of believers, we could deduct that this had to have some reason, so we simply believed in what the majority held, as we did with the rest of History. Apart from this, there could be people who could witness God's wonders related to Christianity, and this was the main thing which made them believers.

5. Christianity tells a story about the Jesus of Nazareth going to be successful in teaching and healing (and casting out demons) in a proactive way, and to make his environment (and thereby the world) better. During this activity, he claimed to commit less of those sins which are usually commited by the rich and the politicians (i. e. hipocrisy and injustice), so he claimed to commit those sins less than the other people or the Pharisees. In spite of this, his activity came with risks, and for the promotion of his teachings he had to pay with his life. Jesus accepted the risk of death voluntarily in order to change his environment, and thereby the world, as he is thought to have passed his 30th year, and probably suffered a lot before that. The authorities condemned him to death, because he considered himself too great and talked about himself in a way that looked like blasphemy. He was crucified, and according to the Bible, he died and his corpse was put in a tomb, but (according to the Bible) he resurrected from death in three days (and this is a central motif of Christian faith).

6. According to the story, the causes of Jesus of Nazareth's death were the laws of the Roman Empire, as well as the laws of the Jewish people and the accumulated sins of humankind. Thus his followers got disappointed in the Jewish (and probably also the Roman) laws, as well as in the sins of humankind, and it seems that God's wonders also supported the changing of these, at least in a way by which Jesus's disciples got his spirit. Instead of the many compulsory things of the Jewish religion Jesus Christ and his followers created a new spiritual system based on faith (and probably on the story of Noah). This was to lessen the sins caused by bureaucracy and by the multitude of laws, and instead of them, they focused on love (charity) and on local churches similar to ancient communities, where the members of a community knew one another very well, and even their sins were common for the public confessions.

7. Thus, it seems that Jesus of Nazareth could conquer for the thorough understanding of things, and he could really be much more talented than his contemporaries. As a shell crystallizes a marble, the world crystallized the Word inside Jesus Christ's human brain, i. e. the teaching that he promoted. Whenever speaking about the Son of God, we probably liken it not to the shell (or person, or destiny), but to the marble, which could be (partially or entirely) passed to another man, and improved like the „science of apostles”.

8. For Christians, the Christian knowledge seemed to be more valuable than to spread it for free, thereby putting others (like their enemies) in a more advantageous situation (than themselves). Even according to Jesus: „Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6). However, there were no copyright laws that time (and God has probaby seen, that it was good), so the teaching was hidden in the New Testament of the Bible (Matthew 13:10-15), and they kept the secrets of its interpretation (and probably also passed it to the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, who live in celibacy). It is also possible that this knowledge does no good when going into unauthorized minds, as one of the Ten Commandments says: „Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7.) Even today, the deep medical books written for physicians are not promoted to the general public, as one man's medicine can act as a poison to another one. It is also imaginable that Christianity recruited (baptized, dipped) people in a similar way as the mafia does, and then the knowers of secrets mixed/mingled with the recruited people.

9. Based on the description of the Bible, it seems that Christianity was born in a huge quantity of suffering, and many teachings of Jesus Christ may refer to this, and do not aim to tell any secret wisdom. He mainly wanted to gather those people who suffered a lot themselves (e.g. those who had to hate their fathers and mothers for their sins, or who had no food except that given to them by Jesus Christ), so that the motivation of his disciples should be strong enough to achieve the common goals, for the change. It has to be acknowledged that part of these goals were political (but probably not with a purpose of governing), and maybe this was the reason of their being supported by wonders (like Julius Caesar was). Jesus Christ tried to do a lot of good to more and more people, so that he could get their gratitude (with interest) according to the commandment: „Love your brethren as yourself”, and thereby influence even more people. Maybe this was even worth it for them, but it seems that to the age of Renaissance this conquest preparing for the Apocalypse, and suggesting the search for the more sustainable Kingdom of God to others, came to its end, and became harmful instead. Otherwise, Power usually did not consider the lot of poor activists' movement good, but it seems that the followers of Jesus Christ (sooner or later) managed to compromise with it: in case of the Jews, by accepting crucifixion (or its appearance) and thereby excluding governmental claims and civil war, and in case of Romans, by adding more Catholic popular elements to the movement (like the Trinity, as the Triumvirate), and in case of later kings, by making the confessions secret.

10. Jesus Christ (or at least, the apostle Paul) aimed to lessen the number of laws in order to make it easier to comply with them perfectly. Apart from that, he suggested to his disciples the search for the Kingdom of God, on which he probably meant partly an Utopistic Earthly or worldly empire (Luke 1:33 … „and of his kingdom there shall be no end”), and partly its spiritual expansion, which can exist in space and time, and maybe in other dimensions hidden to the average people, but can any time appear by revelation (or apocalypse). Thus it seems that he did not consider only that model good where he is the head, and his disciples are the parts of the body, but he also wanted to use the heads of his disciples, and he did not sit passively either. This comes from the wisdom saying that the Lord should take attention to his servants, and in this respect he is not entirely free, but becomes a servant himself, who is interested in helping his servants more than not. The main use of the Kingdom of God is probably the better political system, which diminishes the sufferings of the people and/or increases the sustainability of the Natural environment.

11. The system of villeins proved to be a better system than agriculture and industry by slaves, and this success is partly caused by Christianity and the Kingdom of God. It is hard to do agriculture without a family, so the system of villeins is built around families. When there is no family, then cooperatives can also be formed, which are like religious orders of monks, and their slogan is „Ora et labora” (Pray and work). (By the way, it is possible that the monks did intellectual work instead.) Free smallholder families, artisanal handicrafts in towns, together with producer cooperatives of restricted sizes can probably form the most humane economic system, which would surely be better than the lower 50% of the jobs in capitalism (like work in night shifts, too many trade secrets, etc).

12. In the medieval times nobles were usually soldiers or politicians, and for this risky business they got their rights (as feudum). However, since about the Industrial Revolution the justice for the inherited riches is not inherited together with the riches (according to the slogan „the land is of those who protect it”), so the system became unstable and problematic. (The nobles abused their powers and/or they did not fulfill their duties as soldiers, which could easily happen as villeins became nobles and nobles became villeins too rarely, like in the caste system of India.) It is true that it would be better when neither real estates, nor the rights and obligations of being a soldier were inheritable, but the essence is this: however the political system changes, land is of those who protect it. It is also possible that this wisdom comes from Christianity too, from Jesus's parable of the „good shepherd” who owns the sheep, and that's why he takes a risk to protect them instead of fleeing (John 10:11-12). Maybe even Communism considered this wisdom when it made the military training compulsory for most of the young people. Even according to the present state of the world, it does not seem favourable to sustainability either that the rich enjoy life, its joys and its riches in an unjust manner, while the poor make sacrifices, take risks and suffer for nearly nothing.

13. The religions aiming to win support from the believers and conquering by focusing on faith (also mentioning salvation) are not the original goals of a Godly life, as they do not focus on sustainability, but on the Apocalypse or the Armageddon, and other big changes of the future. The organizations of priests before Jesus Christ in the antiquity might have been better, which could be parts of the system of the State, e.g. with teaching, judging, blessing tasks and maybe also limiting harmful sciences, and blind faith was probably not the condition of salvation here. It may be necessary to limit the harmful sciences (like cloning), and this can be the reason why the scientists accepted by the society should also be priests, otherwise civilization may collapse for the too big advances of science.

14. If we speak about the blessings of Christianity, then it is not negligible that in the absence of Christianity, perhaps something worse could fill the curiosity of the people who search for God (like witchcraft, or polytheism which allowed human sacrifices, or Islam which conquers by the force of the body and makes prayers towards Mecca compulsory). It is possible that Christianity was better than the previous Roman state religion, i. e. it was better and more plausible than the polytheism which applied diviners or future tellers (and it was more Catholic and general than the Mithras cult), and that's why its existence had been justified. Also, both the Roman state religion and Christianity seemed to be better than the Carthagian and Celtic religions which often made human sacrifices (however, there were killings among the gladiators independently from religion).

15. Founders of religions, who accomplished great things, usually meant a blessing for one part of the people, but meant a curse for another part of them due to the greatness of their deeds. However, generally all of them had some excuse to do so, according to the teachings of the given religions: Moses liberated people from slavery, the disciples of Buddha lived on donations, Jesus was presumably struggling against the oppression in the Roman Empire, and Muhammad probably wanted to take revenge for the harms done by Christianity and by Mecca in his territory.

16. The Bible (or Christianity) shows an alloy of the Jewish culture and the culture of the Roman Empire. The Eucharist seems to be Roman: maybe referring to „Panem et circenses” - „Bread and circus”, or to the king Italos mentioned by Aristotle. Aristotle mentions King Italos (or Italus) in his work Politics, as Italos instituted a „system of common meals” for his people, and it is also to be known about him that the Italian Peninsula was probably named after him (as he lived there). By the way, I don't know whether there was a connection between the system of common meals instituted by King Italos and the priestly service of (King) Melchizedek, about which the apostle Paul (or maybe someone else) had written in his epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 6:20-7:28), referring to the Old Testament (Genesis 14:18-20). Thus, the Eucharist may have been traced back even to Melchizedek. The Trinity may be related to the „god” Triton or the Triumvirate (from the conflict of Julius Caesar and Pompeius Magnus). The deaths of Spartacus and Socrates (as well as the exile of Themistocles) are the prototype (or incomplete image) of Jesus Christ's death. Diogenes and the cynic philosophers remind of the Bible in their teachings, and of course, there are some cultural effects made possible by the Roman Empire which can be in a cause and effect relationship with Christianity, e.g. the Egyptian culture, Buddhism, Greco-Roman culture, and (opportunity to know) more, and the probable Jewish enlightenment caused by them. This way the „Catholic” (like universal) attribute of the religion might be better (more pertinent, more appropriate) than the „Christian” one. Here one could also speculate that the following saying of Jesus (Matthew 4:19):

„And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

may be in connection with the RETIARIUS-type gladiators (equipped with a knife, a net and a trident) invented to entertain the Romans. According to another speculation, the Christian Chi-Rho symbol: ☧ might also refer to the centaur Kheiron (Chiron) in ancient Greek mythology. Others relate the ancient Greek mythological figure Adonis to Adonai, a Hebrew name for God (in James Frazer’s work „The Golden Bough”), and Adonis is famous for dying and resurrecting (as well as Dionysus, the „god” of wine, who might be related to the Last Supper and the Eucharist this way).

17. It can even be imagined that Jesus Christ, in English „Anointed Liberator” is nothing else than the ink by which the New Testament was written in the Aramaic and Ancient (Koine) Greek languages, and which might also be related to Triton, a Greek sea God (like a squid), and which might also be drunk. So, while Jesus could just be a man, the survival of his writing (the „anointed” Jesus) can be as sure as of a god, or a son of God, if the writing was really inspired by God (and if it is „catholic”, or „universal”, then in some degree it was really inspired by God, even if it's untrue). Saint Peter might be the owner of a chalk (used for writing), a stone coming from the island of Crete, or something like that. Moreover, the irod rod (or iron stick) prophetized in the Bible might be a tool used for runic writing. Maybe the apostle Paul could make the religion so popular only by his relations with Seneca and the emperor Nero (and the religion became more popular than the reforms of the Pharaoh Echnaton). The statement (saying that) „Christians set Rome on fire” can be as true as „Nero gave commands to set fire to Rome”. The name Maria is very similar to the latin Mario, etc. This means that there is a very concise and deep philosophy and spirituality in the background of Christianity with many esoteric secrets, with the summary of the philosophy, medicine, popular stories and other lore of the given age and with many possibilities of misinterpretation, as Jesus might be the „light of the (ancient) world” (John 8:12).

18. For a better understanding of Christianity, the Jewish culture of that age is worth knowing, too, which was also having a lot of changes. Notable persons: Hillel the Elder, Gamaliel the Elder, Bar Kochba. Notable concepts: sanhedrin (city council), nasi (Jewish prince, head of sanhedrin), Sukkot (holiday). Other notable things: Citrus medica, Phoenix dactylifera (date palm and its leaves), Myrtus (myrtle branch), Salix (willow twig), sandwich of Hillel, Kebap / Kebab, Gyros. Thus these things can be checked in WikiPedia, for example. Judaism is probably called Judaism because it is mainly based on the traditions of the tribes of Juda and Benjamin (and maybe part of the Levites) from the tribes of Israel. Apart from them, ten tribes of Israel were lost (according to WikiPedia), and maybe wandered towards the East, but we don't know exactly what their further destiny was. This split goes back to the age of the Jewish king Solomon (deemed wise by many) in „1 Kings 11:30-32”. Thus rabbies and Levites are probably not the same.

19. Israel, the presumed venue of the Bible occupies a special, central place on the maps, and maybe this was seen in the antiquity too. Thus, of the three big monotheistic religions present there (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) one could even be God's favourite. However, this is not the only interesting place on the maps, as Italy looks like New Zealand, and Great Britain looks like the Philippines, and the shape of the Carpathian Basin looks like Australia (these however, cannot be explained by plate tectonics like the similarities between the coastlines of Africa and South America). Otherwise, Australia looks more analogous to Antarctica, while Eurasia is analogous to North America, and Africa is analogous to South America… and it's an interesting question what causes the analogy between the narrow lands of Suez and Panama (this might give another God argument for us). Another Geographical curiosity in connection with the Bible is the Garden of Eden. According to the Bible, the four rivers of the Garden of Eden originated at one place (probably from Heaven in the form of rain) and they did not necessarily arrive at one place, so putting them into Mesopotamia (for the present rivers of Tigris and Euphrates) is not surely correct. There is, however, at least one place on the maps, Switzerland (part of the onetime „Holy Roman Empire”) from where four big rivers originate (Inn/Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Lago Maggiore/Po), and which flow towards different seas (Black Sea, North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea). Maybe the strategic value of this had inspired the lyrics of the Swiss national anthem („God lives there”), as well as the story of the garden of Eden… at least it can easily be imagined that the onetime writer of the Bible was thinking about this when writing his work… from which it may also come that it was not inspired by God in an absolute sense, but it was inspired by a very powerful person, or alien creature.

20. The old Catholic Christianity tried to lessen the authority of writing (and thus of speech and of thinking by symbols) not only in Politics, i. e. in legal issues and Laws (by building small communities), but a significant part of its creations materialized in tangible things (not using well-known signs) and customs outside of the Bible, like mosaics, crosses, organization by sacraments, Holy Water, works of Art and mystic figures (instead of always the same letters), clothes of the religious orders, and through other non-trivial elements of culture even to the wine of the Mass, etc. spread in the world, and not only transmitting always the same Bible without forces superior to it (e.g. saints who made wonders). It is possible that even God made the unaccompanied (on one’s own) understanding of the Bible harder just in order to direct our attentions to elements of Christian culture outside of the Bible (like the Christian community itself), which might make the understanding of Christianity much quicker. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus Christ's (foster and/or biological) father, Saint Joseph had the occupation of a carpenter, and this made him able to create interesting objects, like a kite with a cross framework (for kite-flying), or maybe a rudder (in case he was a shipwright), which could have been similar to the Chi-Rho sign (☧), and might have been made even for the apostles, although this is only speculation.

21. After the rise of the Roman Empire, the Indoeuropean and Christian culture spread in Europe, of which the most significant exception was the area of Hungary, and maybe it is also today. The Hungarian language is related mostly to the languages of the Finnish (Finno-Ugric) and Turkish people, which is well-known, but there can be differences in the explanation of its reasons. It seems probable that the Finno-Ugric and Turkish words got into one language after the mixing of two more ancient nations, and together with other loanwords (and e.g. definite articles) that appeared in History, the Hungarian language of today came into being. According to the official explanation, the Turkish words entered into the language in the East, before the conquest of the Carpathian Basin by Hungarian Tribes, but there were also a lot of opportunities for the Hungarians in their Carpathian History, too, to mix with Turkish-language tribes, more specifically, with Avars who lived there before the conquest (together with Slavs), and maybe the Cumans, who helped to populate the country after the Mongol invasion… not to mention the Turkish people themselves in the age of Turkish occupation… The mixing of people here (Gepids, Huns, Avars, Slavs, ancient Hungarians from the East, Cumans, etc.) and classifying them into language families can be (at least for Hungarians) such an interesting research area as the History of Christianity, which was also about meetings of peoples (e.g. Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.), and the sign of the cross may even refer to crossing (i. e. cross-breeding).

22. The success of the Hungarian conquerors of Hungary might have come from their spiritual preparedness. For example, Arianism (that denied Trinity) spread more quickly than the Catholic faith (of Trinity) on the areas bordering the Roman Empire, so Arianism could be more easily mixed with the traditions of the given people (e.g. Shamanism), so it's possible that the Hungarian leaders converted to the Catholic or Orthodox faith from Arianism (but it's even more probable that they were followers of „Tengrism”, although this might have also been influenced by some form of Christianity). It is also possible that the seven legendary Hungarian chiefs (leading the occupation of Hungary) might be a reference to the seven cardinal sins, the seven virtues or the seven sages of ancient Greece. Stories of ancient Hungarians or symbols of their runic writing may contain other secrets in connection with Christianity.

23. Some sayings of Jesus Christ look cynic rather than true. For example:

- „Blessed are the merciful: FOR they shall OBTAIN mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)

Better formulated, this can mean that, although they will have more chance to obtain mercy than otherwise, they can generally descend in rank of society as a result of their generous practices, and therefore they will have more chance for getting into the need of mercy as well. The Bible contains a lot of other sayings like this, which, as a double-edged sword, seem to urge to do something, but spiritually they support just the opposite direction (and this can be true for the scolding of Pharisees as well, as the Bible reads: „As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” in Revelation 3:19).

- „Blessed are the pure in heart: FOR they shall see God.” (Matthew 5:8)

This can be combined with the following verse: „And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” (Exodus 33:20). No comment.

- „… whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other ALSO.” (Matthew 5:39)

This can mean to face the problem coming from the outside, as both of one's cheeks are visible this way.

- „And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” (Matthew 5:41)

The executor of this commandment or advice revenges his economic loss by getting into the suspicion of spying, so next time they would not dare to ask him. The real spies can more easily mix in the mass this way. (Maybe this advice is obsolete in the 21st century for Informatics.)

- „… what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.” (Matthew 10:27)

The consequence of this: don't allow anybody to get close to your ears who can whisper such things by which you can come off badly when preaching them upon the housetops.

- „And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off...” (Mark 9:43)

Although this cannot really happen with my own hand, as I usually do not sin against myself, so I usually regret nothing, it could take place in the antiquity that someone cut off the hand of a „purchased slave” thief or robber, based on the philosophy of „I am the lord on my own land”, or „the land is of those who protect it”. Otherwise, this verse probably means just to excommunicate those who offend us.

- „… and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake...” (Matthew 19:12)

They could not enter the harem otherwise… or an alternative interpretation, that they fought for the „Kingdom of God” too much, which had a great effect on the world, and maybe for this reason, they had daughters like the English king Henry the VIII.

- „If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

This seems to contradict the commandment of honouring our parents from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12), and also contradict a proverb of Solomon (Proverbs 6:16-19) which says that the Lord hates the one „that soweth discord among brethren”. This verse can also mean that Jesus Christ was WORSE than those not worthy of being his disciples.

- „He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning...” (1 John 3:8)

Based on this, the whole of the Roman Catholic Christianity (that usually says the „mea culpa” text and undertake confessions) may be of the devil. The apostle John, as the son of Zebedee, could take from the ancient Greek and Latin culture when writing his „Catholic letter”, or even from Zoroaster he could imagine the Devil as a match of God, without it our world might not even exist, and the apostle Judas (who wrote an epistle in the Bible) also warned of the interpretation of the Devil as being too evil (Judas 1:9-10).

24. It is interesting about the Ten Commandments that the different Christian denominations and the Jews break up this part of text (Exodus 20:2-17) into ten points differently, so the Ten Commandments in different denominations may be somewhat different. These commandments shall probably be broken down into points in a way that they shall be (able to be) easily enumerated on the five plus five fingers (or thumbs) of two hands, which also means that this way they will be somewhat symmetrical. Here is a listing of the Ten Commandments that is made in a liberal communist, or anarchist spirit:

1.) I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Comment: it may be acceptable not to have any god at all except oneself, for those people who have never been to Egypt. Moreover, try, with all your power not to submit to other people or their gods... once this commandment is kept, there are others as follows.)

2.) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Comment: it may be acceptable to make some graven image for the public domain, not for oneself, not for entertainment or business.)

3.) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Comment: Try to avoid even the thought of servitude. Otherwise, „the name of the Lord” may also mean his fame or the knowledge about him.)

4.) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Comment: Let it be forbidden, or in other words, a taboo to violate the Sabbath resting day on Saturday.)

5.) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Comment: Respect or honour those who patronize or give life to you.)

6.) Thou shalt not kill. (Comment: Do not kill or murder, and maybe do not attack so dangerously with that purpose in mind.)

7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Comment: Do not commit adultery, debauchery, fornication and/or submission.)

8.) Thou shalt not steal. (Comment: Do not steal, not even from the commons.)

9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Comment: Do not be a liar or swindler or false witness to the expense of your brethren or neighbour. Warning: this may still allow lying against those who are not our brethren, e.g. proletarians may be allowed to lie against the rich.)

10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Comment: this may still allow coveting something from those who are not our neighbours or brethren, e.g. proletarians may be allowed to covet something from the rich. By the way, it is an interesting question whether purchase is prohibited by this commandment, for if it is, then it means that God suggests self-sufficient economy for the people.)

25. „I'm not a grapevine branch, and you're not fish” - I have used this sentence as a motto for this chapter… I would like to explain it here. „I’m not a grapevine branch” refers to the 15th chapter of the Gospel of John (John 15:1-6):

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

In my opinion the perfect God cannot speak like this, so he must not use metaphors, he can only speak in such a way that his words shall be taken literally. Similarly, the following Bible passage may belong here as well, for example (John 10:9):

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Or the following one (Mark 1:17-18):

Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.

Although this latter Bible passage may refer to gladiators of the RETIARIUS type fighting by tridents and nets (and maybe they forsook their nets thinking about that), we may still think, based on the Christian sign of the fish (ichthys), that Jesus might have used a metaphor here instead, and this is against his divinity. Well, we might still try to defend this biblical passage by the fact that mammals (and among them, humans) evolved from fish during the process of evolution, which might mean that they still remained „fish” according to a different kind of biological taxonomy. This might be justified by the argument that according to the mathematical approach, it is not clearly defined what is called fish and what is not. Thus, we can start to examine the question by whether Jesus had a mathematical approach? It is not that easy to examine this question, as I have found a biblical passage in the Book of Genesis that may have been written by a mathematical approach (Genesis 1:1-2):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I thought that "the Earth was without form" part might mean that the Word of God (see: John 1:1-3) still did not have such an expression that could describe the form of Earth by mathematical precision (for example, if the form of Earth is geoid, then it is a good question what else can be called geoid and what not). Thus, the Creation might have happened in such a way that the Word of God gave name to the form of Earth, and thereby the Earth took this form… never mind. The point is that this speculation is still quite weak to justify what entitled Jesus to call himself „vine” (or even „door”), and his disciples „branches”. Namely, if we ignore the metaphorical interpretation, this seems to be false in a strict sense, but God must not speak falsehood. I do not believe that we cannot differentiate these two biological creatures: the vine and the human… thereafter, only one thing has come to my mind that could support the literal interpretation, and this is that the wine could have been speaking from Jesus when he spoke the quoted speech (John 15:1-6)! He might have liked wine so much that he might have identified himself with it, and therefore, also with grapes… and afterwards, his environmentalist activity might have covered mainly grapes (besides sheep), as the priests drink wine made from grapes, so they protect it as well.

The majority of Christians, however, still interpret the mentioned biblical passage (John 15:1-6) metaphorically, so they see an analogy in it with the relationship of Jesus and the disciples believed to be ideal. However, in summary, in my opinion the use of metaphors (false statements in a strict sense) might suggest that Jesus was not a perfect God (or not one I like). Therefore, I preferred to use this („I'm not a grapevine branch, and you're not fish”) as a motto for this chapter.