Christianity

Jesus.  Jesus Jesus Jesus.  Jes—oh, should there be more than that?  The Ists should be analyzed more?  Okay, here goes.  Presenting, for your edification, consideration, and improved countering ability, the viewpoints of Ists. 

There is a major problem across many fields of inquiry.  A summarization: 

1) In the field of healing, which is here called the field of medicine due to an inordinate excitement about medicine i.e. drugs, there is a powerful trend to draw conclusions based not upon evidence but upon consensus.  Great plagues said to have been caused by things that have never been found, but which things have been thoroughly imagined by people who we are assured are very smart, command budgets of gigantic proportion. 

2) In the field of cosmology there is this same trend.  Astronomical observation is selectively repressed, trumpeted, and wholly fabricated by experts whose fabrications are given serious consideration, in order to create a false impression about the way things are and the way things came to be.  

3) In the field of biology also there is a similar trend.  Evidence of the development of the primate over many millions of years is selectively repressed and trumpeted in order to create that same sort of false impression.  

4) The field of history is in this same way skewed.  Great occurrences that did not leave any evidence that they ever happened are said to have happened simply because they are the story preferred by the consensus.  In conjunction with that, great occurrences that happened very differently from the consensuses’ favored story are presented as never having happened.  

This dichotomy—between the way things are seen to be and the way some people prefer them to be described—exists in many other modern fields of study.  Practitioners in any given field often do not perceive that there is any larger, systematic problem in the way things are done.  They prefer to believe that the problem they see is a problem unique to their specialization, and not a problem of their society in general.  

Understanding that other specialties are plagued by the same sort of non-evidenced things practitioners have noticed in their own fields is too hard for most practitioners to do.  It means they have to acknowledge that there is not a good society out there shielding them from the dark ages of relying on faith rather than on evidence.  Much of people’s fervent defense of the expertise of experts and the consensus the media describes make use of people’s own sense of self-preservation in this way.  To whit, when people defend a ridiculous but popular belief, they are using their instincts for self-preservation—they are acting like they are defending themselves.  

They feel like they are defending themselves.  This is why there is such political vitriol; why Usicans* can be so passionate about this or that candidate, or about abortion, gun control, etc.  In the same way that an animal being attacked by a predator will often fight as viciously as it possibly can fight to defend its life (or try to run away as fast as it can), people can exhibit their ultimate defensiveness about an abjectly ridiculous story.  Their conversational partners, thinking they are discussing something less important than life or death, may often find it decidedly eerie to see such passion arise.  It can seem very weird—completely inexplicable—that the person to whom they are talking can become so animated about that issue. 

(*Usica?  Try this: how many countries are there in the two continents named after Amerigo Vespucci?  The answer is a lot.  Because of British narcissism, its ancient battles with Spain, France, Portugal, etc., the habit of calling the United States of America “America” is a foul holdover of that British narcissism.  I.e. Britain got to control central North America, France northern North America, Spain southern North America and lots of South America, Portugal a chunk of South America, and so on.  As a result, common usage is to call central North America “America.”  Thus, “Usica.”)  

Think about some stupid stories, truly impossible, that are nonetheless defended by many.  White people have, as aforementioned, spent a very long time with one form of Christianity.  Much of the tax revenue of many countries for a long time was devoted to spreading the purported philosophy of S.R.  Many people’s lives have been spent on the same, often explicitly.  Art, scientific inquiry, many other (theoretically secular) social ventures, major construction projects, incidences of international cooperation and warfare have been justified by a need to follow S.R.’s will.  The deployment of weapons of tremendous power upon civilian populations causing massive death tolls has been expressly stated as because of making S.R.’s will be carried out.  So, it is not at all unusual when a large group of White people with lofty educational credentials does a very stupid thing consistently and for a long time.  

Christianity is this: an eerie defensiveness about an abjectly ridiculous story.  “Christmas” is very obviously taken from Yuletide, just as “Easter” is very obviously taken from the springtime fertility celebrations of Ostara.  The concept of heaven is taken partly from Zoroastrism, and the concept of hell is quite verbaliterally (made up word) taken from the pre-Christian goddess of the underworld named Hel.  The concept of Satan having been banished to under the land was taken from the many adventures of Hades in his underworld confinement where Cerberus served as the guard.  Etc. etc.  

If the idea of an invisible rabbi watching everything you do down here is not itself ridiculous enough, other parts of Christianity have been extremely well charted as the continuation of pre-existing myths.  Yet, because of the often obscene, often murderous, terrible behavior of people who say they’re against Christianity, the other side of the false dichotomy presented to people—Jesus-based Christianity—has survived.  

This behavior is often driven by those who crafted and deployed Christianity, and horrible counters to Christianity are part of the effects of Christianity.  An “anti-Christian” movement, like the behavior of the character Satan, is the same thing: just more Christianity.  Think of Hegelian Dialectics.  

Increasingly modern forms of universalism are quite ridiculous, but they have not only survived but thrived as being considered against traditional Christianity.  They are the other side of that false dichotomy—a non-Jesus form of Christianity (a subject of salvation; universality).  Christianity based upon Jesus is decidedly, monumentally ridiculous, but many of the ideas presented as “against” or “beyond” this kind of Christianity are also decidedly, monumentally ridiculous.  Because of this, each side can thrive off the other.  As a result of the false dialect, people can be either Jesus-based Christians or expressly non-Jesus-based Christians, and be against what is decidedly, monumentally ridiculous.  Because they are against what is ridiculous, people can believe that what they are not against is not ridiculous.  

What today’s Jesusians are failing to understand is that this is the way Christianity has always operated.  Saying that the enemy was the pagans and paganism, who were said to have done objectively ridiculous things—like believing lightning was someone throwing thunderbolts, or that someone had a deer-head—are ridiculous, and have permitted many generations of Christians to thrive.  This is why Bangism—a ridiculous rejection of environmental correspondence—has thrived: because Jesusianism is so ridiculous and the ridiculousness of Bangism can be not focused on, but instead the triumph over Jesusianism, which is like a lot of sugar distracting someone from the taste of a pill.  The claim that everything randomly developed perfectly suited for Earth’s environmental conditions is ridiculous, but so is the claim that said invisible rabbi lives in the sky caring about how you behave.  Last time around, the intellectual superiority of the invisible rabbi living in the sky was made to pass by the ridiculousness of things like a man having a deer-head.  Think of a fire burning steel and how the objectively ridiculous can be used to make policy be accepted and happen for a long time.

It is a self-flattering pretense that Christians believe things based on their reaction to evidence rather than that they prefer to be inside a consensus.  But they do want the latter.  They crave that consensus.  Crave it.  No Jesusian (adherent of Jesus-based universalism) will ever receive proof that Jesus existed/exists or that Jesus did/does anything whatsoever.  In a church, however, surrounded by people who claim that Jesus surely does exist, the Jesusian is comforted.  

The modern church—the academy—will similarly never ever see that different groups of kids have scored the same on standardized tests.  In the academy, though, surrounded by people who claim that all human beings are surely intellectually equal, the Bangist (adherent of non-Jesus-based universalism) is comforted.  

Both types of church are ridiculous.  People in either church can rightly belittle people in the other, the other institution itself, etc.  Christianity, however, is about consensus.  Thus, the “church” must arise, providing a venue for the domination of consensus.  

Like the desire to be saved from matter is not now understood or acknowledged, it was not acknowledged then what universality was.  Bangists do not generally perceive their churches as churches—they think the things are completely different.  Just as they would laughably dismiss the idea that worshiping Jesus for having made everyone fundamentally the same in northeast Africa is very much the same as the modern atheist’s belief that test scores will equalize and humans developed in Africa, they do not at all think the university is a church.  

In the same way that Jesusian Christians and Bangist Christians bolster each other by always exemplifying something provably very stupid on “the other side,” various academic disciplines provide one another the same service.  Those practitioners who perceive that there is a problem within their discipline shield themselves from the realization that their disciplines’ problems are systemic.  Thinking, “it’s just this weird political problem with <the name of my discipline>” (cosmology/medicine/history/biology/etc.) is protecting the church itself.  People can continue believing that there exists some existential truth demonstrated by the unsullied university.  That desire for the church is weakness—the need to believe that somewhere on this planet (generally within the needer’s society) exists a place where the true expression of correctness exists.  

Possibly through ignorance, and/or possibly through wishful hope that there are other Earth-people out there who respond to evidence rather than respond to consensus, aided in either case by assumption, very many educated people do not apprehend how general is this condition.  They believe that the problem of response to consensus is exclusive to the discipline in which they operate/know things, rather than a problem now spread across many (most/all) disciplines.  

What is the nature of this problem?  Let us try to explain it indirectly by describing how the world is portrayed, and seeing if that means anything to you: 

1) Everything began with a big explosion in outer space; 

2) After some time, human beings came to be in the Middle East via a mysterious process which left them united and possessed of fundamentally the same types of cognizance;

3) The human beings traveled around the globe from the Middle East, some of them inspired by random environments to create the First World; 

4) A lot of un-evidenced bad things happened to some people who were picked on just because.  

The story recounted above looks familiar because it is the Christian story.  During this Christian Era—which can also be called the era After Death (the death of S.R. of course; C.E. for Christian Era, A.D. for Anno Domini or just A.D. for After Death)—Christianity has evolved.  

People often think, incorrectly, that because they do not believe in this one particular sky rabbi named Jesus they are not Christian.  However, Christianity is not about Jesus, even though many people think it is.  Christianity is about the things listed above, not about Jesus.  Primarily, it is about universalism.  

“Christ” means “savior.”  Christianity literally means “savior-ity.”  That is why Bangist Christianity and Jesusian Christianity are both Christianity: because they are savior-ity.  People who feel that they are modern, sensible, and so forth, and don’t believe in any of the crap about Jesus, are often “saved” Christians—Bangist Christians—even though they truly believe that they are not Christian.  They are, though.  They believe they are saved; liberated; not part of the real world.  

But “saved” from what?  From what is a savior saving you?  The world.  Savior-ity—Christianity—is about being “saved” from the real world, i.e. considering yourself not a part of the things around you.  The ridiculous stories associated with the Jesusian and Bangist faiths are expressly Christian, because faith-based—non-evidence-based—decision-making is what Christianity is.  Savior-ity is about not drawing conclusions based on evidence, but drawing conclusions based upon faith.  

This is why the results of studies about the power of prayer, standardized test scores more than a hundred years after slavery in Usica, etc., do not change the faith-based perspective.  The results of studying those kinds of things are evidence—anathema to savior-ity; to faith-based thinking; to Christian egalitarianism (which is generally not called Christian by Bangists).  It is perfectly appropriate to discuss a Christianity without Jesus.  Christianity is about being saved; not about this one particular sky rabbi.  Jesusian Christianity is not the only Christianity.