That You Criticize Jesus
Proves His Existence
I was surfing the net to find out more about the Dead Sea scrolls, and I happened to come across your site.
You sign off your emails '"Positive Atheism" Magazine, Five years of service to people with no reason to believe"
The main thrust of the letters that came up in the search were dealing with Jesus as the teacher of righteousness.
I found that your attacks on the mythological figure of Jesus were so ANTI that it made me consider a philosophical quirk. If you are so ANTI some thing, then surely that something must exist. After all, I am not anti shalugi. But if I published so many articles about shalugi, , the myth of shalugi, shalugi the bizarre, shaugi the insane, shalugi the trickster, then certain web watchers would want to find out about this shalugi. They would philosophically expect him to be a figure that exists, but is an unpopular figure, one that people would wish to condemn, warn against etc.
The next step would almost be creation of this non-existing-spoken-against-person. However, the resurrection-from-nothing-of-shalugi, the non existent being, would not be the kind of start for a world wide shalugi religion, and yet Christianity is a world wide religion that has played a very large part in the foundation of the world's last remaining [out of 20 odd]civilisation. Christian ideals and values and spiritualty clearly do work, whereas the philosophy of the non-existing-spoken-against-person shalugi is unlikely to work. Clearly the myth of Shalugi and the myth of Jesus are not parallel. Jesus seems to be more than mythological.
The other piece of evidence which philosophically is enough to drive anyone to faith is the son of Mary, sucking his thumb bit. I quote
admittedly fictional Behold The Man: historian rides a time machine, discovers that the son of Mary and Joseph is an idiot, sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, saying, "Jee- zus!Jee-zus" -- so he decides to take over the role of the Jesus character so as not to tamper with history (though I would have gone ahead and tampered with history!).
You must admit that this is vitriolic. Why it enough to motivate a Moslem to come out of the shadows and to separate your head from your neck with one swish of an Arabic sword [Christians expect unbeleivers to be antagonistic, so they forgive]. The intensity of your attacks of the mythological Jesus are so intense, I just cannot believe that such a person does not exist. You just don't attack a figment of the imagination in this manner. You don't spend hours and hours writing about a mirage, a fleeting shadow that passes across man's consciousness for a few millennial seconds. Why attack a nothing? The 'behold the man' reference is a mockery and a cruel one at that. What is it that arouses such emotional intensity and such deep antagonism?
You sound like a democrat arguing against Ronal Reagan/Margaret Thatcher/George Bush [snr]. The attacks against them are just as intense, just as emotional, just as full of cruel mockery- but they are real, they are historical figures. Attacking these figures makes sense, philosophically, but attacking a mirage nobody nothing does not make sense unless there is an inner tension, conflict, spiritual acknowledgment, yet outright rejection. Philosophically, what seems to be the case is that it appears that deep down, you do believe that he exists, but you reject the claims that he is said to be making on your life. He stood for something that you are rebelling against. A creed, a set of values, a philosophical position, perhaps even the person himself!
Philosophically it just does not add up spending such a lot of time, money and emotional intensity about a nothing-nobody who never ever was is or ever will be. Are you mad ...... attacking a mirage, jousting at windmill mirages, or are you sane, just defending yourself from doing or believing something you do not want to do or believe in?
I am sorry to say this, but your atheist website is convincing me that there is something in this Jesus thing.
Please reply with comments!
one month of service to people who appear to secretly believe???????
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <email@example.com>
To: "Steve Blomefield"
Subject: Re: Cliff Walker - comment on the content of your site
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:45 PM >
I was surfing the net to find out more about the Dead Sea scrolls, and I happened to come across your site....
The main thrust of the letters that came up in the search were dealing with Jesus as the teacher of righteousness.
Why don't you search our site for comments on bigotry, or see what we have to say about people who lie through their teeth for the express purpose of defaming atheists?
It is interesting that you would judge our entire site by what comes up with you enter the string "dead sea scrolls" into a search engine. Set the search for Exact Phrase and you will come up with precisely three letters, two from Christians who are at least as spiteful and antagonistic toward us as you are, and the third from a man who does not identify his beliefs (or express rage toward us) but who is curious about a few historical points.
The last letter asks a question about which books cover a certain topic, and I provide him with a run-down of a dozen or so books which cover the topics he asked about. What is it in this letter that warrants the brutal attack you launch against me, wherein you condemn my entire motive simply because I disagree with those who propagate the Jesus myth? Could it be the word atheism on the title page that got you going?
The Steve Whirledge letter was by a man who chose to simply make bald claims about the literal truth of the Evangelical variant of the Christian religion, but refused to bring forth any of the arguments I said I would need in order to assent to his claims. He simply kept making bald statements after I repeatedly informed him that bald statements are not enough for me. What is it about my response to this patently dishonest man that earns the vitriol you send my way? What did I do? What did I say? (Did I use that word atheism again?) He wasn't particularly vitriolic himself (not like you are), but he was a monumental pest in that he refused to respond to the counter-challenges we raised to his pseudo-challenges, but simply repeated his statements over and over.
The fellow who pseudonymously called himself "Chris Tian" (who didn't even have the self-respect to tell us his real name) was at least as intellectually dishonest as Steve Whirledge, if not more so. On top of that, he was a flaming bigot, and appeared to enjoy the sport of taunting atheists (much like Rich Zawadzki did), almost as if he was "coming down to our level," so to speak, and "slumming" with us for a while. What is the proper response to this patently disrespectful behavior, considering that they are not the target audience for this forum, but are guests? They aren't even invited, yet they treat the host in a patently abusive tone! Alas! Even if I had done everything else properly, my use of the word atheist to describe myself is more enough to get certain bigots to want to chop my head off "with one swish of an Islamic sword" and then remove the fingers from the hands of my corpse when they're done.
With the quotation of my work that you excerpted, you show your colors as a man of dishonesty, deliberately falsifying a statement of mine for the purpose of making me appear to have said something different from what I really said. In my response to Chester Twarog, who had asked (again) about some of the Jesus books I've read (surprise! I'm known to be a collector of books about Jesus, so naturally I will get a few questions about such books), I described some of the very strange Jesus books I'd read (they're all pretty strange from my perspective), and admitted that collecting and reading strange Jesus books has been a hobby of mine for decades.
Here is the entire section, a book review, with its context, so you can see that it cannot be interpreted as being the vitriol which you falsely paint me as expressing:
Some of my favorites have been: Garner Ted Armstrong: Jesus as married rich man, not poor at all; Hyam Maccoby's Revolution in Judaea: Jesus as Pharisee, seeking to save his country from Roman occupation (very realistic, by the way, we have excerpted it); the book The Jesus Scroll: archaeologists at Masada found, in 1964, the skeleton in of a married Jesus, the last of the Hasmonaean line, who had before arranged the death of his cousin John and then faked his own death to hide from both Roman and Jewish authorities; and the admittedly fictional Behold The Man: historian rides a time machine, discovers that the son of Mary and Joseph is an idiot, sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, saying, "Jee-zus! Jee-zus" -- so he decides to take over the role of the Jesus character so as not to tamper with history (though I would have gone ahead and tampered with history!). As you know, I have made quite a hobby of collecting Jesus books.
You see, by showing the entire paragraph and explaining the context of what I said, you could never come to the conclusion that I am the way you falsely portray me. But, your goal was not to portray me as I am, but to defame me in the most unsympathetic light possible. Do do this, you had to lie about me, by extracting a fragment of my words, divorcing it from its context of a book review, and portray these words as my actual sentiments rather than what they are, a description of the story line of a science-fiction novel that I read fifteen or twenty years ago.
Far from what you say, I think my candor would tend to show people that acting as dishonestly as you have is not a very effective way to stump for the mythical Jesus or to defame your opponents. And issuing veiled threats of Islamic physical violence shows only the desperation of your position.
I found that your attacks on the mythological figure of Jesus were so ANTI that it made me consider a philosophical quirk. If you are so ANTI some thing, then surely that something must exist. After all, I am not anti shalugi. But if I published so many articles about shalugi, , the myth of shalugi, shalugi the bizarre, shaugi the insane, shalugi the trickster, then certain web watchers would want to find out about this shalugi.
What you omit is that people who insist that shalugi is a powerfully brutal deity and who insist that I ought to join them in believing this delusion did not systematically persecute my predecessors for over 1,500 years and kill them off and confiscate their estates for the "crime" of admitting that shalugi does not exist. The shalugi-ists did not erect encroaching laws that force you to give homage to the shalugi-god whenever you spend money, go to court, or a hundred different things that have to do with government and public life. The followers of the shalugi-god are not persistent and enticing in their recruiting techniques, willing to go to any length to win a single convert or to defame a single opponent. The followers of the shalugi-god do not berate you, belittle you, lie to you, lie about you, or see to it that you are ensured both social and economic disadvantage for openly refusing to believe the shalugi-god lie.
The followers of the Jesus-god did and do all of this and much more.
So the followers of the Jesus-god earn my vitriol, and their myth, which they insist is literally true, which they insist I ought to endorse, earns my round criticism. The followers of the Jesus-god take themselves so seriously that they also earn my biting sarcasm. But if you don't like the sarcasm of Voltaire, Paine, Ingersoll, Moorcock, Carlin, myself, and others, you do well to keep your religion a private matter, as the Jesus character suggested that you do (Matthew 6:1-13).
I am not against "Jesus" because the Jesus of mythology is but a fabrication of extremely clever opportunists. But I am against the Jesus-pests who constantly approach me -- both on this Forum and off -- to try to coerce me into believing what is, both on the surface and at the core, a very shallow and profoundly despicable myth.
If the shalugi-ists were in the majority and had done to us what the Christians have done, and if the shalugi-ists treated me the way you and your fellows have treated me, I would be logging on to the Internet in an attempt to help those who admit that no shalugi exists to cope in the face of vicious bigotry at the hands of the shalugi-ists.
And I'm sure that many shalugi-ists would ignore my statement to the effect that this page is not for shalugi-ists but for nontheists, and would write to me anyway and pester me with their shalugi-claims, and I would respond and post those dialogues because to do so serves a purpose for my nontheistic target audience. Then (I'm sure), other shalugi-ists would log on, read these off-topic dialogues, and try to assert that I am all about anti-shalugi, when the truth is that I don't even care about shalugi or Jesus or anything else, but rather am concerned for the welfare of my fellow-nontheist. And I would be defending my position against the slander of the shalugi-ists the same way I am defending myself against your slander.
But, you see, I don't have to endure any of this harassment. All I have to do to stop it is to shut up. All I need to do is pretend that what the Christian majority says and does is acceptable.
If you were an atheist and wished to become a Christian, there is an organization somewhere within a mile of where you live that would be more than glad to help you make the adjustment from reason-based thinking to faith-based thinking. However, if you were raised to believe that a Jesus lived who was the Son of Mary and thereby allowed to form a fiery pit wherein people must burn forever who disagree with Him, and if you were trained to lie, slander -- whatever it takes -- to defend the reputation of the organization that taught you to believe this horrible myth, and if you wanted help adjusting from that thinking to reason-based thinking, you have nowhere to go except here and a few other websites on the Internet. You have very few examples of how those high-pressure sales pitches you endured ought to have panned out. And when you do stumble upon a collection of those, someone else is sure to have objected to them and even slandered them to the point of insisting that their presence on the web actually proves the existence of Jesus!
As George Carlin once said, "What logic!" Have a nice life. As far as we know, it's the only one we get to live and our moments here are all too brief.
Are you mad ...... attacking a mirage, jousting at windmill mirages, or are you sane, just defending yourself from doing or believing something you do not want to do or believe in?
I am neither -- and herein is your lie: I am not jousting at a windmill but showing that the dominant paradigm is the source of untold destruction. I never talk about Jesus but always about the Jesus myth. I am not even against the myth itself (even though it's falsehood), but strike out against the myth's perpetrators because they propagate the myth in such coercive ways, leaving a path of utter destruction.
I am not defending myself against doing or believing something that I don't want to do or believe in (why would I lie like that?); I am defending myself against the slander of my ideological opponents who would portray me as mad for wanting to address what is admittedly an extremely clever ruse, one that has enticed people throughout the ages to lie about, to maim, and to kill their fellow for not going along with their madness.
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.