Same thing goes for Judaism and Islam, though Judaism doesn't have the worldwide aspirations that make the other two so pernicious.
In Classical Rome, Christianity was the Scientology of its day. It's stories of Christ were seen to be as silly as Thetans and alien ancestries are now. Christianity and Scientology are cults, but one has respectability due to having been institutionalized, the other does not.
I could make a pretty good argument that Jesus Christ and his disciples never existed. Though I wouldn't bet my house on it, I'd still I'd give the odds at 3-2. One thing for sure, because the vast majority Christians converted and stayed Christian without ever meeting Christ, His actual existence wasn't necessary for Christianity's success. So, once anybody had the story together, based on truth or not, they could spread Christianity.
Why would they come up and spread such a lie? I know: power, money, fame and pride. Now, any cultist might not desire all of those. They can swear themselves to poverty for power, fame and pride for example, but as L. Ron Hubbard and any cult leader have shown, the rewards for lying to found a cult are considerable. If you have confused or uneasy relationship with the truth anyway, why not lie about it?
How would they ever get followers to spread it? Exactly the way they do today. Once followers are inculcated with a fear for their immortal souls, and even with the fear of the souls of the rest of the world, a little lie for your Bishop here and there is really nothing compared its service for the Greater Truth. Bend words around in an Orwellian way and put in just a little threat that all your friends will become your enemies, and you can get them to lie. Then, everyone who's converted based on those lies believe those new lies. They'll be willing to tell a different set of lies. The whole thing perpetuates that way.
The best piece of evidence that Jesus never existed, as far as I'm concerned, are in the many writings of Philos Judeaus. He was in the right place at the right time and had all the right connections to have made a mention of Jesus in his writings, and he wrote about everything. He doesn't mention Jesus in any of the massive amounts of his writings that survive. Nor are any of the events in the Bible described like the darkness at Christ's crucifixion. From other non-Christian writers who were there at the time, there is also no mention of any of it. For any writing at the time of Jesus that can be verified, there's no mention of him.
Now, I realize I can't prove a negative, but what strengthens the argument is what Philos does record and describe in great detail: a cult that is all over the Roman Empire at the time called the Theraputae. In every way they look precisely like Christians, an ascetic cult with bishops and deacons. So they are institutionally, socially, morally, and ethically Christian in every way: minus Christ. Moreover, Philos describes this group existing contemporary or right before Jesus' ministry. In other words, sixty years before it should have existed.
It's quite possible, even likely, that the Theraputae doctrine might have evolved into Christianity. If they didn't, it's terribly difficult to explain what happened to them as Christianity ascended. However, an organization with bishops and deacons, instead of apostles that is institutionally just like the Christian Church at the beginning of the 2nd century would explain how the early church went from having disciples, such as in the Acts of the Apostles, to bishops, which are two extremely different things, and how it did so seemingly at breakneck speed.
Whether Jesus is total fiction or not, he is the stereotypical cult leader, and the Bible is a cult-founder's handbook, a big reason why Christianity keeps splintering is that anybody can make a slightly novel interpretation and start his own cult, especially when most people can't think of Christianity as one.
A post answered me last night on the AbolishHumanAbortion blogspot:
http://is.gd/S6uA78
roanie1012 said...
Madman,
“I'm really glad I read your last comment first, because I have no need to read anymore of your comments. Your illogical assumptions about the future make me wonder if you are a psychic who can predict what will happen if only abortion is abolished.
"'You're not going to get rid of abortion, or maybe you will for a generation and not any longer. Mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic.'
“Umm.. have you seen the name of the blog? Abolish human abortion. Abolish slavery. Do you think that slavery abolitionists thought when they were starting their abolitionist groups that they would ever abolish slavery? Humanly speaking, absolutely not, over the course of 20 years. However, John Wesley once said (not John Wesley on this blog) that "unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you?" God is for us, and we are confident in that. Please further explain "mostly for the same reason that 37 percent of women who receive abortions are Catholic." So what? I could claim to be an atheist, go get an abortion, and validate the stereotypical pro-choice atheist who has no moral reasoning and therefore no problem with an abortion. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. People can claim to be something all day long (Baptist, Catholic, atheist, agnostic), but I am confident that Bible believing followers of Christ who have been transformed by the Gospel are seeking to abolish abortion, and in that case, the Catholic women getting abortions holds no ground. So, please clarify.
"'For the most part, no matter they say, when they have an unwanted pregnancy women will want the choice. That need is not going away. Guys, too, are not going to want to be stuck having to pay for unwanted children, not when they can easily prevent the creation of those children, and especially when their mothers don't want them either. The worse thing that could happen to the prolife movement is if they make abortion illegal.'
“Once again, this seems to be based on mere speculation. The funny thing is, we have confident Biblical hope and a consistent moral standard to base the brutality of abortion on, and WHY we are seeking to abolish it, yet your claims for being pro-choice are based on speculation of the future, and being psychic. And guys having to pay for unwanted children? Solution: grow up, be responsible for your sexual urges, and take responsibility for your actions. Abortion? An excuse for men to indulge in their selfish sexual desires and not suffer the consequences of their behavior by getting rid of the consequence (abortion). Wow, how sad. Grow up men, and you won't face unwanted children, nor will you face having to pay for them.
“All that to say, I would advise you to think about your speculations and psychic abilities, because they seem to be failing in your logical reasoning for supporting abortion.”
Here's my answer:
You think you know what to expect from Genesis just by reading Revelations? My psychic abilities are nothing compared to your confidence in yours. You are totally wrong to assume that the rest of what I wrote was in the same vein as my summary.
Yes, summed up with my speculation, which is why I waited until the sum-up to give. It has NO BEARING on anything else I wrote and little connection to it other than being about abortion. I was just happy to have reached the end of methodically answering all the points in his entry and to be writing free rather than answering him anymore.
And, yes, as you're so astute to notice the obvious, it's speculative. My speculation I can take or leave, so I won't argue it with you further. I merely declare it.
So, you're really happy to have missed the entire point and to be answering something that had nothing to do with the rest of what I wrote? Maybe you should either throw yourself into total laziness and not say anything else, or at least read the rest.
BTW, your saying the abolitionists didn't think they'd ever succeed is rather speculative about the group of them, too. So is your confidence that true believers (and do you know how many are truly true?) don't have second thoughts when presented with the decision themselves. But then, what can I say? The Bible is your favorite speculative fiction, and you're really just a Bible fan. Just like Trekker really. The difference is that Trekkers stop short of fanaticism.
And whether God is for or against you is dependent, first on foremost, whether God exists. This has never, ever been demonstrated, and if it were demonstrated, there would be no point to "believing in" God. You don't believe in things or qualities of things that obviously exist. Faith does not indicate confidence.
So, if your so confident in the existence of God that you believe in him, you're not confident at all. What you are is committed to acting as though he exists and is on your side, hoping that it will end up being the reality, or that you will always be ignorant of how wrongheaded you've been, which is far worse than just being speculative.
Interesting that you think that women simply lie on the surveys to impugn the Catholic church. Is it that all women who seek abortions are liars? That seems rather "speculative" to me, especially when a third seem inclined to slander members of the Catholic Church. It's far more speculative to form your opinion without even numbers on a sound survey than to form them with the numbers.
So, why should you have confidence in your baseless speculations rather than mine? I also find it interesting that you would you be tempted to slander atheists if you had a chance, while those lying women seeking abortions won't. What it tells me is, you speculate on everybody else's lying by your own willingness to do so, which seems to be higher than usual. So, I'm sorry to mention the possibility you're probably a bigger liar than the women who took the survey. That, of course, is speculative, but I have higher confidence in it than anything else I've speculated.
So, don't give speeches about growing up and all those other parenting cliches you want to apply to adult women and men. A person stopping themselves from having a child they can't possibly raise is not a childish decision no matter how and why they had sex. Also, sex is hardly a childish thing, children don't and can't think in terms of it. It's a uniquely adult thing.
So, the authority that you feel God gives you as the morally righteous is null, your speech on responsibility is inappropriate and irrelevant, and the idea that "responsibility" that is, having less sex will remove the need for abortion is simply idiotic, given the odds of pregnancy without birth control and the odds that birth control will fail. Plus the fact that people will probably be less inclined to use birth control the more they trust their willpower not to have sex, as statistics on abstinence bear out.
So, now maybe you know the less speculative mode I took with the rest of my posts. I wonder if you're curious enough to read the rest now?
I haven't been sleeping well, that is, I haven't been able to settle down to sleep at a reasonable time, and my life is suffering from it. I've taken sleeping pills and it has just kept me tired during the day. My terrible sleep pattern is making my writing testier.
I'm almost afraid to look back at the AbolishHumanAbortion page. Whatever is being said there, I don't feel I have time to answer. I know, but I posted this instead. Yes, but is my blog, and as a writer, my commitment.
No comments:
Post a Comment