AW! Epistles
From Dave
Abstract
Sunday, 13 February 2005
I really enjoyed your site and especially the areas concerning Barabbas, Jesus arming his disciples, and Persian influence on Judaism. I did feel that some of your ideas were missing the mark and attacking Christianity on an effectively a priori basis, verging an argument that in its simplest form runs “assuming that Christianity is untrue, it is complete bullshit”. Especially in the area of rebellion in Jerusalem; I have never been under the impression that Christians doubted that Jerusalem was in a state of insurrection, or that at least some of the Disciples were members of the Zealots, or that the Disciples believed Jesus to be a Messianic warrior and that Jesus’ actively fulfilled (some of the) Messianic “prophecy” and the military implications it contained.
The Christian belief is that he took this Messianic status and subverted it, and “Thy will be done, On Earth… ” is fulfilled by the Christikan Church and its religious conquest of Rome. I believe that some of your writing simply builds up to rather than undermines that interpretation. You believe the build to be an indictement of Christianity only because you a priori assume such an interpretation to be impossible—which is not a necessarily unreasonable assumption.
Your polemic also sometimes detracts from your argument, you recieved an e-mail from a guy from Longbeach and in correspondence with him you stated, “…It is neurotic, if you say you are not a Christian. I have said repeatedly on my pages that Christians are unrepentent liars… I am pleased to hear it. This horse is not yet dead, and I am sorry I mistook your attack to be from a Christian.”
This highlights a certain irony to your writing. If your site is dedicated to rational argument, his e-mail should have had merit in its own right not according to “where it came from”. You take on a fundemental and neurotic stance of a religious faith based nature, except that your brand of theism is an a-theism.
One of religions greatest dangers is its “easy answer” view of reality. But entirely discarding religion is just another easy answer that ultimately solves nothing. I often hear about how religion is responsible for war, I largely agree but would add—only to the extent that it just another fundemental ideology. The USSR and Communist China are hardly peacemongers.
Yes lots of Christians are stupid, and gullible, and assholes, but is hating them for it particularly productive. The worlds not short on stupid, gullible, asshole atheists.
Whilst I think I disagree with you on these points, I loved 99% of the site and could write 99 times this much on everything I agree with you about. I say that because I wouldn’t want this critique to seem like an attack, sites like yours deserve praise as they are what the internet is all about.
Thanks for your observations. Regarding my ideas missing the mark. My argument is not an a priori one. I offer a lot of historical evidence and some scientific evidence to show that the foundation beliefs of Christianity are better answered without a lot of supernatural necessity. So, I do not assume the falseness of Christianity, but present a lot of evidence to show that it is better explained historically than by mythological fancy.
Regarding the insurrection. The point is that Christians already have a belief that the events were supernatural. They therefore ignore the plain facts by sliding them to one side. Jesus was murdered by the Roman state because he was deemed to be a claimant to the sovereignty of Judaea. That is what the Jews expected of a messiah and that is what the Essenes seem to have been waiting to initiate. The evidence suits the normal claims. There is no need to slide them out of the way in favour of a poorer explanation, unless you have to because your mind is already made up.
Regarding God’s will. With the hindsight of Christianity having become a world religion, one might be able to argue that God’s will has been done. No doubt Moslems argue similarly. But the pages go on to examine the historical record of Christianity and show that it is terrible. If this is God’s will, then the world would have been better off without it. All it is is special pleading and simply does not work unless we all suspend our critical faculties, an ability that Christians must have, but not the rest of us. That Christianity is impossible, being supernatural, should be a sufficient argument in the modern world, but I do not assume it. I repeat that I offer plain evidence to show that the Christian evidence with a load of supernatural assumptions is unnecessary. The explanation is perfectly understandable in historical terms with only a few perfectly natural assumptions that seem far more likely than the extravaganza Christians need to postulate contrary to their own theological rules (Occam’s Razor).
Regarding the email from longbeach. I took the email on its merits and answered it on its merits. The apology was for what it explained. I had assumed that my critic was a Christian because of his attitude. It affected how I addressed him, but not the answers. It is for addressing him in the disparaging way that I address those who disparage me, people I take to be Christians, that I apologised. When there is doubt about some hypothesis then alternatives need to be given some respect. My attitude to Christians is that they leave behind their brains to be able to believe. The evidence against the Christian explanation of events in Judaea around the year dot is utterly overwhelming, so those who continue to believe in the Christian explanation are believing for other reasons than the falsely compelling merit of the myth they have been offered since childhood. The main reason is plain. Fear! Believers are scared of death, and are encouraged to be more scared of it by threats that they will suffer eternal torture, a punishment that simply does not go with the belief in a purely loving God.
Regarding easy answer. The point all of Christians overlook is that Christianity is supposed to benefit us morally. You argue that it does not. What then is the use of it? I had better add “in this life” to avoid a load of supposed supernatural “benefits”. If ordinary people are unflinching mass murderers then we have to live with it, but Christianity is supposed to be for good people, to make wicked people good and so on. It has been the opposite to such an extent that you have to argue that it is no worse than what we would expect!
On hating stupid, gullible assholes. I never said that I hated them, and. I do not hate them. As I have said before, Christians are sheep or shepherds. I am sorry for the sheep, but disparage them for their lack of criticality and their gullibility. It is hard not to despise those who invite their own exploitation. The shepherds are, of course, the exploiters of the rest. These people are just crooks and should be jailed for confidence trickery. They are closer to being hateable, but only in the sense that anyone is who takes advantage of others.
Thanks for the appreciation otherwise. I am used to being attacked on these lines by Christians as you will have seen, if you have read some of the correspondence pages. That is why I sometimes assume an attack is like the rest—offered by a Christian as an excuse for Christianity. When people protest they are not Christians, then sometimes I have to apologise to them. But it is an excusable crime. Surely?
