Click here for Dutch translation
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
John Adams – tweede President van de Verenigde Staten (1797-1801)
The cross, that inhuman torture and execution tool of Roman times – the very thought of which is repulsive to all civilized people – has through the ages grown into the universal symbol for Christianity worldwide. Getting accustomed to the daily exposure to this relic of a barbaric past as we are, we have become almost insensitive as to its gruesome meaning.
One not only finds it on steeples and inside church interiors and – usually complete with the bleeding victim on it – on famous paintings commissioned by the church. In the living rooms of pious people too, and prominently displayed in classrooms of religious school, impressionable young children are constantly confronted with this image of ultimate cruelty even today.
Also, many devout women wear the cross as a cherished trinket on their necklaces. Moreover, we see sexually frustrated men in gowns carrying it about on their person in religious processions. And many adults – even those who function reasonably normal in society otherwise – spontaneously collapse to their knees when confronted by it, and as recently as in the year 2005 a priest in a Rumanian cloister applied it to kill a mentally disturbed young woman.
In the Middle Ages, when the church still reigned supreme – a period therefore often referred to as the Dark Ages – even murdering and pillaging expeditions under the sign of that same cross became popular. At that time and at the instigation of criminal popes bent on extending their rule by the conquest of Jerusalem, tens of thousands of innocents – among whom many pious Christians – were slaughtered under the sign of that cross by just as pious Christian adventurers from western Europe, who had no business being there. These gangs were led by robber barons that had been promised by the clergy – as a reward for their atrocities - forgiveness for their sins. However, most of them were not to profit for long from this generous offer, for almost none survived the adventure. The justifiable resentment over these invasions by plundering and murdering hordes has never died down, and still is a fertile source for Muslim terrorism.
And yet, this can still not explain why this symbol from a barbararic past could become so much more popular by Christians than, for instance, a replica of the stake that was loved so dearly by the early clergy, or of the gallows, the guillotine, the electric chair or other revolting tools of execution of later, but no more civilized practices.
Let us take the stake, for instance, on which especially Christians with a conviction deviating from that of the Holy Church were burned alive, after having been tortured by a pious clergy. This instrument was considered to be the ultimate means to propagate God’s love for humanity by the Roman-Catholic Inquisition, so it was applied frequently. And yet, images of this distinguishing characteristic of an early Christian culture are nowhere to be found in either churches or living rooms. Why ever not? Is it not from a far more recent date? Besides, this shameful period in western society is at least historically proven, in glaring contrast to the four mutually inconsistent but equally unlikely tales about the cross in the Bible. For these are stories that lack all historical support.
For this popularity of the cross originates from four tales in the New Testament, or rather from four versions of the same story about an event which probably never took place, i.e. the Gospels of Matthew, Marc, Luke and John. In these stories, the life and dying of a certain Jesus is recorded, a figure who claimed to be the Son of God. Despite the rather embarrassing fact that the existence of this God or any other god has so far never been shown, and that the existence of Jesus cannot be proven according to historians, these stories form the very foundation upon which the gullible base their life convictions. And this is why the gruesome torture and execution of the supposed Jesus on this cross so dull-wittedly admired, constitutes the glorious pinnacle of their belief. However inconceivable, it is the justification of this God-given murder that forms the central point of their faith.
This justification – bizarre as it may sound – is that this supposed execution was necessary for the salvation of our souls. This will make you feel a great deal better, I don’t suppose. Whatever, the message is that we should be thankful for it. So now you know the reason why this symbol of cruelty could grow so popular with approximately one-third of the world’s population – the true reason being self-interest. It became so popular that even still today, worldwide two billion believers celebrate this alleged event at Easter, the event whereby a holy father condoned the cruel murder of his son. They do this on the date the Roman emperor Constantine has allocated to it, namely that on which earlier cultures had honored both the goddess of sensual love Astoreth/Astarte/Isjtat and the awakening of nature, an altogether far more civilized cause for thankfulness, you might agree.
Even so, let us first consider the authenticity of this story in four variations. There are differences every intelligent reader would instantly notice, had his mind not been dulled by religious indoctrination. Moreover, the events in these stories are so breathtakingly unlikely – such as, for instance, the walking on water, to name just one absurdity – that even if all four narrators were to agree on the details, still no one in his right mind would believe them.
Of course, we all know that when we ask four eyewitnesses to report on the same event - even one that actually happened – the best we can expect is agreement on the main points. On the details, we will hear amusing variations. Did you ever hear a couple at a party tell about their holiday experiences? Is it not fun to hear them add details and correct each other?
Although these four gospels vary considerably with each other, in this case one cannot really blame the authors, in the first place not because none of them could possibly have been an eyewitness, even if those events had really taken place, simply because they were not born until after the alleged events. Research has shown that the earliest Gospel originated in 70 AD, whereas the execution, according to biblical myth, would have taken place in 33 AD. This would have allowed ample time for myth forming, even if only parts of the events described had actually taken place. However, we lack all evidence, no matter how seriously people have tried over the ages. Moreover, the main character has not left us any written messages at all, to support his existence.
And there is another good reason to exonerate these authors for their conflicting versions of the same alleged events. Apparently, no one outside the New Testament seems to have noticed them! That is strange, it must have been an impressive spectacle to experience an earthquake so violent that it made rocks split apart, and to see how graves were opened and the dead awakened, who then started wandering about town. The Bible “reports”:
“ Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Matthew 27:50-53
However, the spectacular events described here are nowhere to be found in the annals. That is peculiar, when we consider the number of accounts written by historians living in that period. Of course, they wrote accounts on events that really took place and are supported by archeological proof or otherwise. John E. Remsburg in his classical book ‘The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of his Existence’ (The Truth Seeker Company, New York, pages 25-25) names no less than 42 authors in that area who lived at that time, or within one century thereafter.
Moreover, taking into account the muddled history of the Bible taking form, it is also very unlikely that these stories are the original accounts of known authors. More likely, these Gospels are copies of copies of translations of translations, the originals of which have been long lost since. Besides, it cannot be ruled out either that some copies were adapted to support certain group interests in the past. So, anyone who would like to believe the Gospels anyhow should be well aware of the fact that someone who could perform such spectacular miracles would have come to the attention of at least some historians. And, as said earlier, there were plenty of those about.
Therefore, any person who drew so many followers that he could be suspected of constituting a threat to Roman hegemony in the region, and whose death was accompanied with such theatrical phenomena as earthquakes and the awakening of the dead, is surely worth mentioning. Especially if that person, to top it all, after his own death was resurrected to wander around the country again, and finally rose up to heaven, wherever that may be. Such an imposing figure ought at least to be mentioned by his contemporaries, why bother otherwise? But regretfully for Christianity, nobody even noticed. Even pop stars gather more fame.
So, except for in the Bible, written by and for supporters, nowhere else in historical sources a Jesus is mentioned. Although for the existence of historical figures from that time or long before documentary proof exists, there are no traces whatsoever found for Jesus. Now, the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, but the fact that the church worldwide has to manifest itself with this barbaric symbol from an unproven past, as the most convincing argument to support its creed, is worth noticing.
Perhaps it is nothing more than a flight forward by lack of better proof, a desperate clinging to a symbol from a mythical past. After all, one can attach any interpretation one considers opportune to a mythical event, in contrast to proven historical facts, which very often have clear reasons and consequences.
How did all these stories start anyway? To cut a long story short, and you can look up any of the four long versions in the New Testament, once upon a time the heavenly God decided to cause the virgin birth of his only son Jesus on earth. How ever did he manage that? No, madam, this is not the place to discuss the sexual preferences of the god of the Christians. Consult your physician for further details. Probably putting the first human being together out of dust was a little disappointing after all. Anyway, this God in all his omnipotence and omniscience had predestined this only son to be atrociously tortured and killed some thirty years later, to enable him to ascend to heaven. Actually, it does not really matter much whether this unlikely story is true or not. What concerns us is the horrible morality of the plan. It is the moral attitude of a father, existing or not, who willingly had his son tortured and killed.
And as for the Christian truth, some time ago we were hit by a particular sentence in a book review that has stuck to our mind since then. We found it in a Christian review in a Christian newspaper, about a bible for Christian children, written by a Christian preacher. It said:
‘Something doesn’t really have to happen to be true.’
Read it again. Ponder over it ... It is a dogma that may go far among the gullible. ‘Something doesn’t really have to happen to be true.’ H’m...
Now why would a father inflict such harm on his son? We as unbelievers may perhaps consider this to be reprehensible, but to the God of the Christians it is not. In the view of this infallible God the Father, in the creation of mankind he had obviously made a little mistake. Because of it, people "made in his image" committed sins against him, whatever that may mean. At an earlier stage, in his all-embracing love for mankind, he had tried to remedy the same mistake by committing genocide on the world’s population by that humane method of slowly drowning them all, except for Noah and his incestuous family. But apparently, this had not done the trick. Besides, a flood makes such a mess, afterward one keeps on mopping up, and where do you leave all this water then? However, that was a different story. There are so many beautiful stories about the love for humanity the Christian-designed God displays in the Bible. Some do still believe them.
So this time, in his infinite wisdom and love he decided – since he still loved humanity so much – to sacrifice his only son, because only in this way man could be forgiven for his sins. Can you still follow it all? Do you not think it a logical solution? What kind of parent are you then, anyway? Would you not have your child tortured to death for your mistakes? Surely, that was worthwhile? For we must not forget, not only the contemporaries of this Jesus, but all their offspring - including you – gained forgiving for their sins by this act. Can you imagine anything more beautiful? Are you still there? And are you not grateful that God the Father loves you so much? Would you not like to have a father like that yourself? According to the same stories, Jesus was fully aware of the wicked intents of his dad, and although he had already performed many miracles on this earth, and thus might be assumed to have been very capable of averting this uncomfortable death, he chose not to do so.
The suspicion arises that these stories were politically motivated, for instance, to form the foundation for a new religion, in a period in which many competing older religions created unrest in the already crumbling Roman Empire. Theologians undoubtedly are able to explain all this nonsense to their co-believers in quasi-profound terms, after having studied the subject for many years, but the run-of-the-mill skeptic who has to work every day “by the sweat of his brow” has no time for this. And besides, if any of you have any problems with all this labor, and would rather only work part-time on Sundays like the clergy, just remember that all this is by your own doing, yes, yours too. It is because Adam and Eve tasted the forbidden fruit. This is our punishment for it, this is why we have to work, this is why all women have to deliver their children in pain, all this is our own fault entirely. Read the Bible:
"To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:16-19
You still see no connection with reality? Ask your priest to explain. By the way, did you ever see sweat on his brow? While you are at it, ask him where all the evil in the world still comes from. Jesus died two thousand years ago to cleanse all mankind from its sins, did he not? That is what your priest will tell you every Easter again, but apparently he is himself not too sure about it either, because during the rest of the year he will warn you not to sin.
However, possibly infidels do not see this the right way, because we do not see the light of the Christian God’s mercy, or do not want to see it. In our innocence, we think that the genocide, exploiting, rape and torture God commands in the Bible may be sins. While all the time the blessed believers know better, do they not? Could omitting churchgoing every Sunday perhaps be a sin, or not bothering to maintain the clergy? Perhaps it is a sin not to thank God for the food we have worked for ourselves, perhaps it is a sin not to kneel for the image of a cross, perhaps it is a sin not to thank God for allowing all the misery in the world.
Now hold on, was it not for all our sins that Jesus offered his life long ago? It all seems so very confusing if you do not simply accept everything the clergy throws at you, but instead start thinking things over for yourself. But belief me, that is so enormously more satisfying, and moreover, it leaves one’s self-respect intact!
__________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
More by this author:
➤ 'The negative effect of church on society'
➤ 'Thoughts on the creation, development and maintenance of gods'