Freethought Nation

There is no historical parallel for the antagonism between Jesus Christ and the Pharisees in the accounts of other leading mythological figures in other time periods in other cultures. D.M. Murdock is intelligent, but she is so motivated by an ideologically based agenda to destroy Christianity (based on the well known harm caused by what could be called "Christian politics"), that she creates an intellectually dishonest critique.

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church syncretically added aspects of other religions to their version of Christianity in order to graft in people from lands dominated by Rome into it's system, and extend the scope of it's imperialism.

Jesus Christ was probably very much like Socrates or Jiddu Krishnamurti or others who went beyond the social conditioning of their time period. People around him, with their superstitions and their desire to project fantastic attributes to him, most likely gradually mythologized him until we got what we see today. This process of myth-making no doubt included the giving Jesus solar attributes, and many other attributes. And ironically, as they mythologized him more and more, many "Christians" acted in ways exactly the opposite of the individual they purported to "emulate", since if they were at all true to the teachings they supposedly "followed", then they would have to cease their blood lust and drive to dominate. History shows that they found the latter preferable, as they made the world hell for others, in an effort to "save" them from hell.

But Murdock stretches the argument beyond the evidence at hand, and in doing so, she looses credibility. An Australian researcher named Peter Myers posted a series of email debates with her and others, that reveals errors and sloppiness in her research:

The above criticism might seem harsh, but it seems preferable for us to not be guided by deceptions, no matter how appealing they might be.

Anyway, I don't have much interest in pursuing this matter further, as I have other things to do with my time. But the above does need to be brought out.

Harsh? No, it's a smear attempt and a very poor one at that. Right away anyone who knows Murdock and has read all of her work can see the strawman arguments lined up right from the beginning.

Oh let me see, how clever, let's start off by trying to quote mine the CC about the new age of Aquarius coming. If you read the book then you would understand that it's about outlining the fact that religion has followed the symbolism of precession for a very long time. And to take little bits here and there of Murdock toying around about precession or joking about a church of astrotheology (of course there is no such thing) and present that as evidence for an astrotheological new age cult run by Murdock, is just a bit too much. That's actually a very played out type of straw man fallacy that many a Christian apologist has tried to pull out of their ass. And they get shot down time and again for trying it...

Listen here, I'm not going to stand by idle while you bring this sort of dishonest strawman fallacy attack to Murdocks own forum. Not on my watch. You ought to take your own advice. These deceptions that you've bought into are appealing to you because you want very much to believe in an historical Jesus that you yourself are incapable of proving. And it obviously rubs you the wrong way. You'd rather embrace a sweat lie (historicity) than a cold harsh reality (pure mythology).

And you obviously don't understand Murdocks works very well yourself or you would know better than to bring this sort of nonsense here to those who do. This is all very cut and dry as I see it. You and those you're promoting are biased in favor of an historical Jesus behind the gospel myth. Plain and simple. This whole thing is about nothing more than you guys wanting to lash out at what you see as some woman who has the adacity to question the historical existence of Jesus. I can see that it really rubs you the wrong way and you want it erased as soon as possible. But you're the one who's actually taking very open dishonest steps in order to try and charge Murdock with dishonesty. That isn't the best way to go about trying to convince people that you're correct BTW....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Seems like a strange line of argument. Can you elaborate? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't recall meeting you yet, but just reading that as it sounds right now, my initial response is to think "Well... there was no previous historical parallel for the antagonism between Spider-Man and J. Jonah Jameson in the accounts of other leading comic-book superheros in other time periods in other cultures".

Moreover, and again, this is why I need you to elaborate on what exactly you mean, what aspect about that seems unique to you, because just off the top of my head I recall the Sanhedrin & how they conspired to kill Jesus, and, while ancient sources vary, the Sanhedrin is typically said to have been composed of 72 members total, and it sounds a bit like the 72 followers of Set and how they all conspired to assassinate Osiris.

Actually, that link seems to be a site that does not want to see the mythology behind Xianity nor do they want others to see it. They are being "harsh" because they do not wish to believe they are believing a myth. They prefer ignorance because 1. they are afraid, because religion hijacks various developmental stages and/or 2. they fear death so much that do not want to face the fact they when we die, that is it and/or 3. they want a parental figure badly.

_________________
Mriana

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. ~ Gandhi

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~ Thomas A. Edison

How exactly does Murdock attack Christianity by calling into doubt the historical Jesus and stating this his story was borrowed? That doesn't make any sense.



This claim seems legitimate at any rate...



Wow, talk about endemic bullshit; she describes Christianity as a product of its time and place and was later hijacked by political and philosophical elites for the purpose propagating fraud and conspiracy. He draws that entire notion from the title of her book? Talk about grasping at straws.



So because she quotes specific authors which you have identified as having an anti-religious, anti-christian slant therefore Acharya must have the same thing too? Wow... can anyone say a leap of logic? He also stretches quotes that refer to confidence and a number of others things as well which I have not addressed because they are just absurd.

Also, what the hell up with the idea of Gay Marriage? What the f**k does that have to do with anything?



What? I'm sorry, but the letter being given in response has nothing to do with what Murdock stated, in fact what is being presented is nothing more than a series of anti-semetic rants and Christian Conspiracy Theories that the Jews hate Christianity and are plotting to destroy them.



Talk about an ad hominem.

I really don't feel like going on anymore with the irrelevant bullshit, I'll leave it as it is for anyone else to dissect. Also, what happened to you blissentia? What made you change your view?