It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln, Manford’s Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents
Acharya S writes in “The Christ Conspiracy” about the origins of the Christian religion. It is not a scholarly work by any means. It’s merely derivative, a mishmash of the works of others, with no original research. But it helps this non-scholarly layman to read her summary of that research, as I will never read that stuff myself. Religion is not part of my life, and there are too many other fun things to be doing. Her sources may be cranks and quacks, but all of religion is quackery anyway. So who better to read – S, or learned theologians?
I do see Gore Vidal’s wisdom in placing polytheism above monotheism:
The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god’s purpose. (Lowell Lecture, Harvard University, 1992)
Part of the amazing durability of the Roman Empire was the simple wisdom of allowing local religions to flourish. It minimized resentment, as new subjects were not proselytized. Many Gods, many ways, and more tolerance of the ways of others. “Acharya S”, whose real name is D.M. Murdock, maintains that the cult of Christianity was the result of intentional forgeries of ancient texts coupled with wanton destruction of those that did not fit. I gather that the way of the mythical Jesus was thought to be a useful way, as submission to power and glorification of poverty was seen as … convenient for powerful people? The followers of Christ, the way and the light, led us into darkness, superstition, holy wars, inquisitions and barbarity. That is legacy today is seen to be love and kindness is but a cruel joke played on all who have suffered and perished by its violent spread.
Another work by archeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, maintains that the Kingdom of Israel was but a small backwater, and the tales therein represented internecine squabbling between insignificant desert tribes. There is no archeological evidence to support Bible myths, they say.
If all of the others gods are false too, I suppose one more should not be cause for complaint. I only wish to be spared from the followers of this one. Imagine sitting next to a passenger on a long flight who sells insurance and Amway products and wants to share Jesus too. Now do you see why planes are flown into buildings?
I went down this road because I only wanted to share this small passage from one of Murdock’s sources, John Hazelrigg, who published The Sun God* in 1971:
…Israel, meaning a belt or land of the heavens, the twelve tribes of which compare to the number of constellations that environ the ecliptic, and through which the Sun makes his annual circuit. … Issa-ra-el, the kingdom of the moon (Isis), Sun (Ra), and stars (El).
Other than Ra being a sun god, I don’t get moon and stars out of that, but do like the idea that the Kingdom of Israel drew its name from three pagan gods, and that the number twelve, tribes, apostles and all of that, is drawn from astrology, another creepy ancient practice still with us today.
This is the word of the Lord. (In unison: “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”)
________________
*Attempts to link to this book lead to some really creepy stuff – Zeitgeist and militia movements. It’s like a journey into the inner workings of the mind of Glenn Beck – I don’t really want to make that trip.
Piece of Mindful 
This pulled from an interview aired on PBS with author and poet Harold Bloom about his book entitled Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Devine (2005).
ELLIOTT: You’re a literary critic. What does it mean to read the Bible as a literary critic? Most of us, obviously, don’t read it in that way. What do you learn about religion from that view?
Prof. BLOOM: I have never accepted, and I argue against it throughout the book, the distinction between sacred texts and secular texts. There is a sense in which necessarily Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jacob, Moses are just as much literary characters as are King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet, Falstaff. There are people who, of course, have direct experiences of the divine. There are–I have talked myself in the course of my life to literally hundreds–I guess by now it’s thousands of Americans who feel that they have had frequent conversations directly with Jesus. I do not question this; I do not doubt them. But the figure whom they believe they are encountering, whom perhaps they do encounter, nevertheless is a figure known to them in the first place because he is in the pages of a book. Therefore, in some sense necessarily, he and God, in any manifestation, are literary characters.
The book is very interesting.
LikeLike
William James maintained that whatever experience these people were having, to them it was quite real.
I’m more interested in the levels of religious belief, where we start with simple childish belief in secret friends and overseers, and then branch out from there to the cynical shysters who see it as a way to separate people from money, and the people who just let it fade into the backdrop.
From there it branches out into fundamentalism, which appears to me to be some sort of mental disease, and caustic dismissal, where we mock religion and followers. From there is another transition, with people like me, who simply disdain the whole business but understand that people are not stupid, and my brother, who sees value in the mythology as another vehicle for truth (even a better one than science).
Your citation of Bloom seems to hearken back to James, saying that whatever it is, it is real to people
LikeLike
For someone who disdains the whole thing, you seem plenty religious, with your adherence and unquestioned belief in the orthodoxy of multi-culturalism, diversity, racial equality, feminism, etc, and your tacit notion that we are going to a metaphorical Hell if we kill Iraqi children, if we don’t put everyone in a union, or if we don’t pay your health care costs.
In the Hadith from Vidal, he says: They are, literally, patriarchal… hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries. Patriarchy does not mean loathing of women. All surviving primate societies are patriarchal.
LikeLike
Religion = belief without evidence. Your first paragraph makes no sense.
VIdal said loathing, I would be less harsh. There is a deep-seated disdain for women due to the power they have over men – sex. Men want that and women can withhold it. From a cultural point of view, it appears that oppression of women is based on resentment of this power.
Have you not noticed how we focus on sex, either by really enjoying it, or suppressing the urge and trying to control others as well? It’s really important, it appears? We really need to loosen up, not be so uptight, but religions seem to think that sex for the pure fun of it is evil.
LikeLike
When among committed liberals, it strikes me that their belief system is isomorphic with religion. Meetings have the flavor of a Church service: liturgy, sermons, commitment to prophets and elders, etc. I think it is a fundamental way of organizing human endeavors.
Religion = belief without evidence.
Every somewhat comprehensive endeavor has to take some leaps. You can’t tell me you move from point to point in your intellectual life with satisfactory evidence at every step.
LikeLike
If you are talking about speeches by politicians, it does have a religious fervor. That’s true of all of us. I was raptured by Nader’s acceptance speech in 2000.
There is an important distinction between religious belief or superstition and other activities. While we may all hold irrational beliefs, science by definition requires the advance of evidence along with it being “settled science”‘ as they say. But much of science Is unsettled. That is not the same as someone saying something is true because the bible says so. U settled science is tested by theory, hypothesis, experimentation where possible. Religious belief is not.
Whether my intellectual life advances by logical steps is an open question. Like everyone, I am a slave to confirmation bias.
LikeLike
You sound like Anders Breivik in his Manifesto. I sure hope you don’t have a martyr complex.
A European Declaration of Independence.
Click to access breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf
LikeLike
Why dismiss all alternatives to patriarchy? Your list includes most honest experiments ongoing today. The traditional patriarch, a fathers of family or tribe, is not necessarily a relevant equivalant to most modern, larger political, economic and social structures. While the primates share many common elements, humans have left behind, forever, I believe, those simpler family-bands that remain in most wild primate populations. I just don’t see many humans rejecting technology and returning to more traditional primate culture anytime soon. We’re trying to figure out — for hundreds of years now — how to cope with change, as change accellerates all around us. “Going back” appears to be one option with no future. Easy to see why so many seem content to let God decide.
LikeLike
ladybug: do you know this person?
LikeLike