I love the one downvote. Like they’re actually upset thier magic book isn’t real.
Yeah, Spiderman fans can be that way.
I’d rather have Spider-Man as a guide for my morals than that genocidal freak they call God.
You could do a lot worse than Peter. “With great power, there must come great responsibility” is an adage to live by.
- Be God
- Create humans
- Wipe out almost all life off earth in a flood because you’re not happy with the result
Yup, that’s what I call responsibility.
Spider-Man has canonically killed more people than God
Actually there are many books of Spiderman which means there’s more proof for Spiderman than there is for God.
Imagine picking up a copy of a copy of a copy of partial recreation of a blog entry about Spiderman existing in the year 4000, and having a long argument over whether Alain Robert, “The Human Spider” ever existed.
Imagine picking up a copy of William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in the year 4000 and insisting “This guy couldn’t have been real, either”.
It’s curious, because I rarely see this argument aimed at the Apostles - particularly John and Peter. There’s just this tacit “They’re liars, it never happened” subtext. No one is brave enough to challenge the entire history of a schism in the Jewish church two millennia ago. Or to consider the apocrypha or the gnostic texts or the plethora of splinter faiths that emerged from this singular moment.
These are things that seemingly happened independent of a non-existent person, without any identifiable precursors. It’s like spilling a bunch of ink claiming Lincoln wasn’t real without asking who won the presidency in 1860.
In Julius Caesar a clock strikes three, and while they had hours (a fraction of the daytime, not a standard unit) they didn’t have mechanical clocks.
But then while we know what happened to Julius Caesar based on historical accounts, even chronicles were politicized, which is why we don’t know of Julia the Elder boffed half of Rome or was just the victim of slander. (Dramatists prefer she did while academics assume she was virtuous). So we know some of the details of the mass assassination of Julius Caesar but we only know some of the general details, which allows a lot of latitude in period recreations.
Jesus existed according to academics (based on third party accounts) but he might have just been an anti-establishment activist or a failed apocalyptic prophet. Not only did Jerusalem have those by the dozen but so did most satellites from which Rome demanded tribute. The miracles and matching Jesus up to fit the prophesies came later. Also Pontius Pilate loved crucifixion and had execution teams on standby where it was considered elsewhere in Rome a dire sentence for the worst of offenders. Pilate was the Roman equivalent of a hanging judge, so it was super-easy for a malcontent in Jerusalem to end up on the cross.
But then while we know what happened to Julius Caesar based on historical accounts, even chronicles were politicized, which is why we don’t know of Julia the Elder boffed half of Rome or was just the victim of slander. (Dramatists prefer she did while academics assume she was virtuous). So we know some of the details of the mass assassination of Julius Caesar but we only know some of the general details, which allows a lot of latitude in period recreations.
We know about Julius Caeser in large part due to the highly politicized nature of the office. If he was a “lesser” consul or emperor, less material would be produced and preserved over the subsequent centuries. The materials around minor prophets in far-flung holdings where the biggest literate portions of the population were ideologically opposed to his contemporaries weren’t going to make it to Cato the Elder in a timely fashion.
That takes us to the documents we do have, which are absolutely larded up with embellishment and gossip and mythological rumor. That’s not an unknown problem for exceptionally historical figures. We don’t discount the existence of the Pharaohs of Egypt because their surviving manuscripts describe them as deities. Nor do we dismiss the existence of the city of Troy because our handful of texts insist the city was frequented by Greek gods and goddesses.
Jesus existed according to academics (based on third party accounts) but he might have just been an anti-establishment activist or a failed apocalyptic prophet. Not only did Jerusalem have those by the dozen but so did most satellites from which Rome demanded tribute.
The significance of the founder of the Christian movement wasn’t that he was one more anti-establishment apocalypse prophet, but that he succeeded in galvanizing an enormous popular movement in a way prior rabbis and rabble-rousers hadn’t.
Blandly comparing Christ to Spiderman only really makes sense if you believe Spiderman has had the same influence on modern American society and culture as a Jewish mystic had on Rome. I mean, maybe 2000 years from now we’ll see it differently. But it seems fairly obvious that’s not the case.
I’m reading it as a joke like “yeah sure, a guy named Jesus was born to a virgin and rose from the dead”- which is about as likely as Peter getting bit by a radioactive spider and swinging from skyscrapers with his webs. Has nothing to do with whether either are influential on society. Of course they both are to varying degrees. One is treated like Greek, Egyptian, or Incan gods or priests or whatever comparison you think best maintains the spiritual elements. The other more like Santa, where kids believe it only so long as their peers and adults play along.
Imo, as long as we move forward as a society eventually to recognize the mystical parts are bullshit, who cares. Humanity collectively still seems to be in Santa stage wanting miracles to exist.
I’m Buddhist, and it’s always struck me as odd that so many religious people require their text to be literally true.
If it were to be definitively proven that the person called Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person on earth, the various Christian churches and organizations would stop at nothing to attempt to discredit this. They would be furious.
On the other hand, if it were definitively proven that Siddartha Gautama, the person who will be called the Buddha, never existed as a historical person on earth, most Buddhists would find it interesting, probably even humorous, and would go on happily practicing Buddhism.
That’s very interesting to me. I dont know anything about Buddhism, can you explain why Buddists wouldn’t be affected much if they found out their relifious figure never existed? I think for christians it would be devastating because it would mean all the promises the bible makes wouldn’t come true, like a rewarding after life for it’s followers and a punishing afterlife for non-believers. FYI I’m athiest, but I find religion and it’s verious practices to be fascinating.
Enlightenment isn’t about some mystical truth and seeing into the unknown. It’s about stripping away the illusions that cloud the way we see this reality. Those stories about the Buddha are ways to illustrate some of those illusions and how others might have come to the realization. It doesn’t matter if they really happened. A lot of them are so constructed that they are probably fake, at least to some degree.
One that really affected me was the 72 problems story (or some number lol, I only remember that it’s not 99, because 99 problems is from that Jay-z song, but ultimately it doesn’t matter how many problems “everyone has”).
For the short version, a man goes to the Buddha because he heard he can help him with his problems. He complains about his farm not doing well, his wife nagging, his kids not respecting him, a whole slew of 72 or so problems, and for each one when he asks if the Buddha can help him with that, the Buddha tells him no. Finally he complains that he didn’t help him with any problem and the Buddha says “everyone has 72 problems, but I can help you with your 73rd problem: the problem that you have problems. Problems are a fact of life, if you get so bent up about having problems, you’re going to have a miserable life because there’s always problems. Accept that the problems exist and you’ll find peace.” And then the guy was enlightened (in that specific aspect of life, since enlightenment isn’t a global state but basically just means “learned a deep lesson”).
I’d get annoyed at needing to deal with things. Still do sometimes; enlightenment isn’t some magical state. But when I notice that that is bugging me, I just remember the 72 problems story and dismiss that 73rd problem from affecting my mood. Which also indirectly helps with the problems themselves, because if you’re pissed about having to deal with stuff, you’ll be less effective at dealing with them (especially if your mood rubs off on others or attracts trolls). It truly feels like understanding that enabled an easy mode on some aspects of life. If the whole story was made up, it doesn’t undo that understanding or eliminate that easy mode.
Whereas I’ve known Christians who can’t understand why atheists don’t just go around murdering people because if they don’t believe in the Bible, what’s even the point of trying to be good?
Buddha mentions following the doctrine while also not discounting new discoveries of future eras
Good God, tune the self-righteousness down a notch… I can barely see the screen through the smog of smug oozing from your post.
Good
GodBuddha(that’s definitely your thing, there’s no such smug oozing from anywhere)
You may be bathing in it to the point you don’t notice it anymore.
deleted by creator
