Premature History of Christianity

I recently got an email from a Christian friend asking me a few things:

“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”
And
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”
And
“According to statistic, ‘n third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”
(these questions aren’t exact, but I’ve taken the individual questions out of the main idea.)

First:
“Why do you say that Jesus did not exist?”

Just to be clear, I never said Jesus didn’t exist (or at least, if I did, I intended different). I said, or intended to say, that Jesus probably didn’t exist. And if he did, not in the way Christians think.

This is slightly harder to explain because you have to stop assuming that Jesus existed in the first place. The real question is: what proof do you have that Jesus existed in the first place? The pressure shouldn’t be on me to disprove you; it should be on yourself (any Christian) to prove because you make a claim.

To make things clearer:
Hypothetically I think there are rats in my house. I tell everyone. Some people believe me, some don’t. But then I become paranoid and call the exterminator. He comes and checks the house out. He looks around and doesn’t see any sign of vermin. He tells me this. He tells me that there probably aren’t any rats in the house. I tell him that he should disprove that there are rats in the house. He can’t because there is always the possibility. But because he does not find any rats, droppings or walls being chewed, he does not really believe me.

The same can be said of Jesus. The only real indication that Jesus ever existed, is the bible. As you may well know, the Bible is not a very accurate source of history. It might be true, but until further proof is found, I will continue to doubt Jesus’ existence.

For example: No single document, written before 97 AD, and referring to Jesus, has been found. There were MANY documents in Jesus’ times. That is why we know the exact history of Julius Caesar, Gaius Marius, Cornelius Sulla, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and all their family members and friends and enemies. The Romans were a bureaucratic lot. The kept records of criminals. Jesus, a well known criminal, could not be found in the Roman records by any historian to date. There were, however, a few references to “so-called-messiah’s” and cults. These cults were about 60 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Jesus apparently lived from 6BC to 30AD, if you believe the church.

But despite this, I still think a prophet called Jesus likely lived. He probably rallied people and spoke about peace and love, but united the people against the Romans and caused much violence. Why else would the Roman authorities seek him out if he was merely preaching love and peace? Rome was famous for its freedom of expression and religion, as long as it didn’t threaten the laws of Rome and lives of Roman citizens.

But then, as happens so often, the story was exaggerated and mythtified. Just think about Gilgamesh. He was one of the first kings, but the myth tells that he was king of the entire world.

I can make the educated guess that Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December.
Mostly because Solstice – a Roman, and therefore almost worldwide holiday, invented long before Christianity – is celebrated coincidently at the same time. At this time, they celebrate the birth of Sol/Mithras.
I can also guess that Jesus didn’t die during Easter. It’s also at exactly the same time as the widely celebrated Passover.
What I suspect, is that the Christian Empire tried to suppress “pagan” and “heathen” holidays, but didn’t succeed, so they decided to absorb the holidays instead. This is common practice, even if it isn’t intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Second:
“How do you prove that Jesus wasn’t resurrected without using the “bible has more errors than facts” argument?”

The “bible has more errors than facts” is not an invalid argument, but I’ll try to make do without it anyway:

Like the above argument, I can simply ask this:
“How do you prove that Jesus was resurrected?”

If I claim that there are unicorns, I don’t tell people who disbelieve me that they should disprove unicorns. They don’t have to, because there is not a single reason to believe in unicorns. The responsibility is on my shoulders to prove the unicorns.

Why is it so important that Jesus was resurrected in any case? If you believe the bible, many people have been resurrected. What makes Jesus’ resurrection so special?

Third:
“According to statistic, a third of Europe became Christians at ‘n certain time. It would obviously be at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. Something must have caused it.”

According to “statistic”? Statistics has nothing to do with this because the data is old enough to be historical, and not statistical. But I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, your ‘statistics’ are completely erroneous. I would like to find out where you got those ‘facts.’

A large part of Europe DID become Christians, you are right there, but they became Christians at about the time Emperor Constantine became a Christian. This was almost 300 years after Jesus’ supposed reincarnation. Constantine killed and tortured many people because they did not want to convert to Christianity. And he killed all Christian sects which was not Roman Catholic.

When threatened with torture, crucifixion or death, people have a tendency to miraculously convert.

Here is a good indication of the spread of Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spread_of_Christianity_in_Europe_to_AD_600.png
Read the part at the bottom for a guide to the map.

As you can see, there were absolutely no exceptions in the Roman Empire by 600AD. People didn’t have a choice. They were forced into the religion and their children didn’t know any better because that is how they were raised. The Jews somehow survived and the Muslims were killed during Crusades. All other religions were absorbed or killed.

You are right; something did cause the spread of Christianity: The threat of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Replying to Person X

Replies to Person X

It seems someone finally had the guts to take me on. But not on the blog. Let's call this person, "Person X."

"Why do you attack Christianity?" Person X said.
"I covered this in a previous blog."
"You said they are the biggest, but they aren't. There are more Muslims than Christians. Just think of all the countries which are completely Muslim, compared to the countries, like America, which are only partially Christian."

Like? Iraq, Iran, Egypt? All very small countries compared to the entire Europe and North and South America as well as India and many parts of Africa. USA, for example, boasts a 78% Christian nation. Nonetheless, here is proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_religions_2005_pie_small.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldreligion.png
(There are several links to more pages in the article. Try the links if you are skeptical.)

But Person X would now say: "Even if Christianity is the biggest. Why did you have to attack Christianity instead of just explaining your way of thinking without attacking?"

Now how would I go about explaining that?

"Hi. I don't believe anything stupid. I believe in what's right!"
And all the Christians in the room go:
"HEAR HEAR!"
Because they won't understand. If I did not say why I am NOT religious, people (who keep asking me questions which I answer in my blog) will think I'm simply trying to be rebellious. They won't understand at all.

Person X also said:
"Don't you realise that you hurt people by making them doubt their religion?"
This is the most laughable of the lot. Let me use an extreme example which I'll elaborate on: Slavery.
"Don't you realise that, by abolishing slavery, you hurt many people. You take away the jobs of people who used to trade in slaves!"
First:
I did not force anybody to read my blog. I only told them how to get there. Therefore, anyone who reads my blog is doing so at their own risk.

Second:
If someone starts crying (a true story I heard) just because I stated the truth and asked questions no one else had the guts to, is it really my fault? Or is it the fault of the church for making you so vulnerable to simple logic?
If a girl is molested by her father from a young age and thinks it's normal, is it the police's fault for locking him up? Is it offensive to tell the girl that her father is a criminal? No. It's the father's fault for molesting his daughter and telling her there is nothing wrong with it.
That is exactly the same way I see this situation. The church lies to you and to itself. And by exposing these lies, I am not at fault. The church is at fault.

Another example:
In France, the Royal families and rich people oppressed the other 99% of the population. Then, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and many others published articles and books about democracy. At the time, the royal family told him that his works were offensive. After all, he criticized the system. And if you criticize, you are wrong. It's not the system's fault, it's Jean-Jacques Rousseau's fault! Some people even went so far as to storm the Bastille and revolt against the King and Queen, resulting in the first democratic country in the world.

How offensive!!

Like Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that Feudalism was wrong, and many others (like James Somerset, an English slave) believed that Slavery was wrong, so do I believe that Christianity (all theistic religions actually) is wrong.

I know I am going a little overboard, comparing myself to the great Jean-Jacques, but the idea is similar.

Third:
When I say, "I think Chelsea is a bad soccer team." Some people get emotional but they can present facts such as: "Chelsea won the League last year, as well as many tournaments and they are currently second on the league ladder." We can argue quite objectively about it.

The same can be said of politics, the weather or any other subject. We can talk about it, change our mind, let other people influence our thoughts and be honest about it.
But when it comes to religion, I have to tread carefully because I might offend someone. When I insult someone ("Your mother is a whore and your father smells of elderberries"), it offends them. That part I understand.
But when I tell the truth, or even ask a simple question, such as "the bible contradicts itself. Which parts are true and which parts are not?" I might offend someone. That part, I don't understand.

I don't say something false. Most people KNOW that the bible contradicts itself; they just don't want to admit it.

Person X also told me: "If you didn't make that blog, and if you didn't tell everyone that you are an atheist, people wouldn't have reacted that way and thought bad about you."

Thank you for stating the obvious; but let me answer the underlying question in that statement:

I want people to react.
Just like Jean-Jacques Rousseau wanted people to react (they eventually revolted), so do I. I want people to talk about my blog and read it. I don't force them, but I want them to read it.
Currently, Person X is telling me that I should not rock the boat; that it is better for me to let things go on as they are because there is nothing wrong.
Person X has obviously not read my blog. There are major problems, and I am trying to inform people about them.

If you hear about a father molesting his daughter and telling her that there is nothing wrong about it, will you say: "We can't interfere. We mustn't rock the boat because it might offend the father or the child." Or will you try to inform people about this problem and tell the girl that what the father is doing is wrong?

Person X also told me: "If I was being discriminated against, I would try to put a stop to it, but you are not being discriminated against, and you don't have to offend people." (Person X said many things in a single sentence, but something like this popped out.)

I am being discriminated against. People hear about me being an atheist and they are shocked and distant, no matter what I do about it. And I'm not going to hide it and pretend that I am wrong.

Someone even once said: "No. I don't like him because he's an atheist."
That person didn't say: "No, I don't like him because he preaches against sin and sins himself." Or
"No, I don't like him because he talks bad about people behind his back like I am doing right now."

That person said:

"I don't like him, because he's an atheist."

And I'd just like to finish this with a bang:

Person X told me: "You aren't being discriminated against. It's not like I go around talking bad about you behind your back."

If my sources, my ideas about the patterns you follow and my memories about stories you've told me yourself, are correct; I can simply say this:

I find it hard to believe you.

P.S. I've tried my best to keep your identity anonymous. If I've made any mistake in this blog, or if you'd like to comment on anything I've said, please email me.

The Church and Money

I just came back from a vacation, so sorry for the long delay between blogs.

Religions, especially Christianity and Islam, have too many rights.

Let’s say you open a business.
This business is called The Church of Megatronism. It opens its doors every Wednesday and invites anyone to come inside and listen to you talk to them out of a book you call holy. You also invent a few things along the way and people believe you and think that it is written in the book, because they don’t actually read it. To make sure you can eat and sleep, you end each sermon by asking for small donation from each of the members. You remind them that the holy book tells all people to give 3, 14159% of their salary to Megatron. Because Megatron likes pi. Then, when the Government sends a form for you to fill in regarding your income, you tick the little box which says:
Religious Organisation (Tax Free)
You say whatever you please, you ask money for it, and then you do not pay tax?!

This should change. Immediately.

Just think of the money going to waste. And what is this money used for? Paying the theologists who live in a free, government provided home nearby. Sending missionaries on expensive trips to other parts of the world where they give starving people a bible. For uneducated children, they build a church.

Read this article, it’s not very long and it is extremely humorous: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46226

Jesus himself said: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
The point of this sentence is that the Lord demands your soul and your time, while the government demands your money. If you want to earn money, a materialistic thing, then you should pay tax. If you want to earn everlasting life, you should believe in Jesus. Then why are religious organisations tax-free? The Church grew power hungry and demanded more. The church became exactly that which Jesus fought against: a corrupt organisation with materialistic goals. Things are changing, but because of the extremely corrupt past, things are as they are.

And they get this money because they make people feel guilty if they don’t give their money to the church for no reason whatsoever. How are donations to the church different from begging? Think about it this way: There is a large organisation of motivational speakers. Normally, a very good speaker gets paid more, and a bad speaker gets less work. It follows capitalism. But with this “holy” organisation of motivational speakers, it doesn’t really matter. If the speakers are uninspiring, people will still go to the church because they would feel guilty if they didn’t go. People won’t easily switch churches (or religions) because that’s the church they’ve been going to since they can remember.

Because of a kind of natural selection, the church is very good at keeping members and getting “donations.” If the church was bad at getting donations, they would not have survived for so long. If there are branches which are unsuccessful, then they would have died out and been replaced by the more powerful churches. And this has obviously happened.

For more information about religion’s rights, read this:
http://www.venganza.org/
it explains everything a bit more clearly.