The (belief in) Christianity Myth

Part of the Christianity Myth

Chritianity is a huge and persistent myth, yet it is also a myth that is in decline and perhaps on the verge of collapse. The biggest problem that Christianity faces is that even its adherents don’t actually believe it. They believe in something but what that is would not typically be recognisable to the original followers of Christ. If you take one of the disciples at the time of the ministry of Jesus and transport them to a modern Christian Church I can’t think of a single thing in the form of worship that would alert them to the fact that it was anything to do with them. So you could be reading from the book of Mark for instance and Mark wouldn’t see any connection. Of course if he knew the language he would soon see the connection, but the form of worship would be completely foreign to him.
Contrast this with Islam and Buddhism where the current form of worship would presumably be somewhat recognisable to its original adherents.
The changing of the forms of worship originally had the effect of opening up the religion to a vast group of new adherents, but it now faces the problem that the original texts as written are hopelessly inappropriate for the lives of those adherents.

One of the effects of this disconnect is that Christians don’t actually believe in Christianity, much less Jesus. What they typically do believe in is certain moral lessons drawn from the teachings of Jesus, but without an intimate connection to Jesus’s way of life itself. The modern Christian wouldn’t like to become a disciple of the original Jesus and those disciples wouldn’t find the modern Christian acceptable adherents of the faith.

Imagine for instance if the typical modern Christian in the United States was given the opportunity to take a one way trip into the past to the time of Jesus’s ministry. It should be the case that every person who says they are Christian leaps at the chance of such a thing. After all, being around Jesus ‘the actual son of God’ is what it’s all about. What could be better than that?
It is also possible that if the offer was made, a good proportion of so called “Christians” might think that they had to accept the offer, but once transported to ancient Judea would find that they didn’t like the situation there very much.
Can you imagine your typical pastor or priest walking around ancient Judea after Jesus?  Where would they get food and medicine?  Oh, well that wouldn’t be a problem right – Jesus would feed them and heal them!  More likely the local people would stone these weird barbarians to death.
They wouldn’t know the language Aramaic, the language Jesus likely spoke day to day nor would they know Koine Greek, the language the New testament was written in. So they couldn’t communicate with Jesus or his disciples. Roman Latin would be much more familiar to the average person, but that was the language of Jesus’s enemies at the time.

Even if they could learn the language of Jesus (which of course only the tiniest portion of president day ‘Christians’ bother to do) life would be very difficult for any modern person around Jesus. It would be much more attractive to the modern person to live in the more ordered Roman world, and that would be invariably where they would migrate whether they liked it of not.

Jesus is nice in theory but if you had to meet him and deal with him it would be exceedingly difficult for people not acquainted with the ancient Judean culture and norms.

It’s a bit like a teenage fan from a affluent background catching up their rock idols. It’s something they might find they want to idolise from a distance.

“Never meet your idols” is a phrase that would be suitable for Christians in relation to Jesus.

I should add as a disclaimer that I would very much hope that Christians don’t bother trying to purify their myth of its glaring inconsistencies as stated. Doing so would create something much worse than even the Amish. But I don’t have to worry about that too much since – they won’t!


Calling any and all en-viron-mentalists*

I feel like I have a lot to say after my blogging break of a few years. The break was as a result of having too much to do – which I still do. I came back because of a break which allowed me to think about these issues again. But in brief why do I do this? Originally it was to try and promote my book but I’m well past that now. I simply want companionship, or not even that, but some acknowledgement of mutual feeling that would be generated by finding someone who also knows as I do that we are not in social reality. That would honestly be enough, if there was one single person in the world who I could talk to about this stuff. I would also really like it if they could get there themselves since I don’t want to have to be responsible for their state of mind.

Obviously there is the option that I could go out and play some game of getting some number of people to hear what I am staying and indeed directly showing them that we’re not in social reality. I do not want to do that because of the potential negative effects – Something like a collapse of the mythspace, possibly. That could be bad. Not in any absolute sense, but the mythspace is there for a reason!

But if there’s someone who has independently discovered that they are not in reality, then there is no worry about that sort of thing. In that case we just use the mythspace language to communicate about the actual nature of things, and this could be a very relaxing and stimulating fellowship.

In some sense this could be a hopeless task. If I really am the first person to truly understand that we’re not in social reality then I’m not going to find anyone to talk to about it. It’s just that from my perspective it seems incredibly arrogant to think that. Still, it might be like the blindspot Edme Mariotte was apparently the first to discover some information that any individual had access to.

Now, I just wanted to explain to you the difference between directly and indirectly telling someone about something. I regard every time I say “We’re not in social reality” as indirect. It sounds direct, but it’s a bit like going up to someone who doesn’t know about the blindspot and saying “You have have a blindspot”. It’s not necessarily going to mean much to them even if they believe you. However if you make “A small coin placed in the blind spot disappears from vision, a seemingly magical event that amazed the French royal court when first presented by Mariotte.” That’s going to mean something to them.

Another example would be if you went to a movie that you’ve been told is a scary movie and the person on the screen says “I’m in a movie and you’re an audience member” then you’re not going to worry about that. If they start saying personal details about you that no one else knows you’re going to run screaming from the movie theatre.

Me saying, “We’re not in reality” is like someone on TV saying “I’m on TV”. It doesn’t have that personal connection. It does when You’re Donald Trump and Steven Colbert does this however:

So it would presumably be easy enough for me to directly show people what lies (or ‘truths’) beyond the mythspace to try and generate some company on this planet, but (conveniently you might think) the risks outweigh the benefits.

But you know, if you have the slightest inkling of what I’m taking about, even if you’ve just seen it once and dismissed it then feel free to get in touch. It would only take me a very short time to verify you.

*Environmentalists are what I call people who can directly access the psycho-sexual environment without it being mediated by cultural myth.  (Gee I don’t appear to care how blatant I am anymore.)




A response to the Gay Myth.  Not written by me as seemingly believed by certain idiots on

Clare Flourish

I have lived my life with the handbrake on. Too prone to hit the foot-brake too, and terrified of the accelerator pedal, I seek to free myself. My project here is finding what stories, understandings, and responses serve my freedom, which increase my serfdom. Jtteop, despite a rebarbative idea which initially blinded me to the value which might be in what he says, seems to seek such freedom through words, so repays a closer look.

His “myth” is that one is born gay, only attracted to persons of the same gender. His counter-myth is that being gay is not innate.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that…

View original post 347 more words

Mini post on lethal chambers


Yes it has been a while since I last posted. That’s the busy season for you. But I just read an interesting chapter online and I thought I would share. I’ve had this phrase in my mind about “constructing a kind of a lethal chamber” which was a suggestion I once read from the end of the 19th century to deal with ‘the unfit’. I googled this phrase and came up with this chapter which will explain all. Enjoy!

The mystery of Dr Ken Fabian

Ah, Dr Kenneth J Fabian M.D – Where are you?

I’m putting this here as kind of a bookmark that I can edit later. Basically the story is as follows:

Following my discovery of the psycho-sexual environment I happened across the website of Dr Ken Fabian who had developed what he called A Feeling-Based Theory of Autism. it was a geocities site and such sites were later automatically resurrected so you can see it here:

Such 90’s web stylings!

There was also a blog:

When I discovered this stuff I was stunned. Here was someone who seemed to know what was going on, have a theory about it and be preaching it! Yet no one seemed to be listening. There’s nothing I love more than a lone voice of truth in the wilderness. Anyway, I had an ultimately frustrating email exchange with him and found out some more information. Then I lost contact with him and he also seemed to stop posting on the internet so I presumed that he actually died.

But I am left with many questions. The main one being “How can someone who effectively has the answer not have anyone listen to that answer?” I mean I understand how difficult it is to get people interested in reading my book for instance but wouldn’t parents of kids with autism be desperate enough to try anything?

The only reason I can come up with for the lack of interest in his theories is that it come up against the deep nature of reality and his method gives us a glimpse that we’re not in reality – that glimpse being more information than most people can cope with.

First edit:  We’re talking about a successful technique here.  One that can cure autism!  Who would care about something like that?

Of course the first reaction that someone might have about it is that it surely can’t be true.  I assure you it is true.  However the only independent confirmation on the internet that I can offer is this:

Oh yeah and he is/was a real medical doctor:

And here’s a medical paper he wrote:

Second edit:  Oh yes, The web archive has some interesting things.

On his website: it seems he was attempting to recruit children with Autism to work on at the time he ‘disappeared’.

One more for the road:

God damn you can find a lot of information on the internet!

I may as well also chuck this on there.  I tell you it’s shocking the amount of information you can freely find on the internet about people once you start looking.

‘Getting it’ – Helen Keller and my aims

The story of Helen Keller is well known, although perhaps less so these days.  However the critical juncture in her life was obviously her introduction to language.

I wrote a book called “A journey to the end of philosophy” which also pertains to the discovery of a certain discourse, and it also does so by showing rather than telling, however it never exactly reveals what this discovery is.  The reason for this is that I don’t want to cause undue damage to the social order without knowing what would replace it, or if anything would.

Ideally in the case of normal people I would like them to know that something is there but not be experiencing it directly.  That way philosophers could discuss the situation and work out a consensus on the way forward.  The only problem is that without experiencing it directly they won’t know the significance of what’s there.

Anyway they don’t care in the slightest about my discovery, and if I was to show them it collapse’s the social environment so that I can’t talk about it with them either.

In the case of people who are what is caused aspirers or autistic I think there is real value in introducing them to aspects of the environment that neurotypical people take for granted.  The question is whether it is possible to do that without throwing them fully into the environment and the problems that entails.

In the case of Helen Keller, she lost her sight and hearing at an early age so it was hard for her to learn sign language by touch and at first she didn’t know what they were trying to teach her so she wen though a period where she knew people were doing what we would call language but she didn’t know what that was:

I do not remember when I first realized that I was different from other people; but I knew it before my teacher came to me. I had noticed that my mother and my friends did not use signs as I did when they wanted anything done, but talked with their mouths. Sometimes I stood between two persons who were conversing and touched their lips. I could not understand, and was vexed. I moved my lips and gesticulated frantically without result. This made me so angry at times that I kicked and screamed until I was exhausted.


My earliest distinct recollection of my father is making my way through great drifts of newspapers to his side and finding him alone, holding a sheet of paper before his face. I was greatly puzzled to know what he was doing. I imitated this action, even wearing his spectacles, thinking they might help solve the mystery. But I did not find out the secret for several years. Then I learned what those papers were, and that my father edited one of them.

She described it thus:

Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in, and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbour was. “Light! give me light!” was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour.

This is how she described the moment where she ‘got it’ and started understanding what language was:

Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that “w-a-t-e-r” meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.

More information in this page.–Helen-Keller-Comprehends-the-Word–Water-.html



Obvious or False?

New and true: it’s obvious* or false

* Ah, actually someone might have said this before – I don’t know.

False or Obvious: the blogger’s dilemma

After blogging for any time on the internet, you may become aware that every idea people come up with is placed under one of two categorizations; it’s either obvious or false.

False we can understand, but what’s the use of ‘obvious’? 

Obvious is for when someone comes up with an idea that is actually agreed with but people don’t want to credit them with it.  Therefore they say that it’s ‘unoriginal’. 
I’m guilty of doing it too.

I’m as guilty as anyone.

“Your blog would make an excellent handout to be given to phil 101 students on their first day.  Have you ever considered becoming a philosophy lecturer or something like that?”

– Me to John

So you get called ‘unoriginal’.  Where do you go from there?  Probably you have a long debate about whether you’re original or not.

So at that point there’s several people arguing about originality.  Sitting in their houses in different corners of the globe.

Someone may be typing away on a computer and those physically close to them may ask “What are you doing?”

That’s a very legitimate question.

Do they say “I’m devoting some time to convincing someone that they’re not original?”

What kind of activity is being performed here?

It’s clear there is some kind of ‘fail’ because there can be no benefit to anyone.  The reason that people still do it is that for most of the history of humankind, if someone communicated with you it meant they were close to you and therefore relevant.  Now it no longer means that, but our brains can no longer conceive of any other way.

This generally means that blogging in a social sense is quite useless, but it might help to hone conversational skills for genuine social encounters.

Then there’s the dumb reciprocalness of it.  If i go away and comment on a bunch of people’s blogs, and especially if I say nice things, then they will view and comment on mine.

Its like if only the people who wrote letters ‘to the editor’ of the newspaper got to write stories.

There’s the ‘star factor‘:  If Richard Dawkins wrote a blog with some bad argument against religion everyone would just call him wonderful no matter what it was.  You can check out this phenomena on his website if you like – maybe even add to it!

There’s the temporariness.  Only the latest blog matters, and then only if the latest blog is recent.

That’s enough about the crappyness of blogging for now.  But it’s all part of the buildup to the end of philosophy.

“See you at the end of philosophy”

Richard Dawkins is religious

How Richard Dawkins is religious.

Very simply because Richard Dawkins says that he is religious. He says that he’s a “Cultural Christian” and a “Cultural Anglican”. Now to say that he’s religious in this context isn’t quite the same thing as to say that he believes in God or any external supernatural entity like that. Indeed he does not. Infact, he believes in a much stranger state of affairs than that.
Consider the difference between a ‘cultural’ christian and a ‘normal’ christian the difference is that the normal christian believe in a supernatural and metaphysical cause and interaction with his/her christianity.
Specifically the typical christian believes that by virtue of their belief and actions certain metaphysical events occur within the supernatural realm.

Now the interesting thing is that Richard Dawkins would say that none of those events actually occur and that the christianity is infact cultural. The only difference between his christianity and that of regular christianity is that the practitioners of regular christianity are apparently deceived as to the causes and effects of their christian beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is saying in effect that his is a more correct version of christianity by rejecting the supernatural notions. Lots of denominations claim that theirs is the one correct interpretation.

The difference between Richard Dawkins’s system and the normal christianity is that under the actions of the metaphysical christian are created in response to the supposed supernatural situation. What Richard Dawkins is saying is that there is no supernatural situation but he’s going to press of regardless with that belief system.

It would be like if you had the Aztecs who were sacrificing people by ripping their still beating hearts out stop believing that it was keeping the universe going but kept doing it regardless!
It would be like if Japanese suicide pilots in WWII stopped believing that the emperor was divine but kept on flying out to crash into the US ships regardless.

To Recap

Richard Dawkins – Cultural christian. In his view all christians are really just cultural christians. (There can be no supernatural cause for christianity) Therefore he believes he is the only metaphysically correct christian.