Happy Zombie Jesus Day 2010
Why reinvent the wheel when I can recycle last year’s seasons greeting?
Well, it’s that time of year again — the long-weekend that a number of Western nations observe as a national holiday: the pagan festival of Eostre, better known as Easter, where millions of people gleefully glorify in the brutal killing of their god, who was the son of their god sent by their god to cleanse the world from sins stipulated by their god, for the appeasement of their god.
I have a computer wallpaper that describes it succinctly:
Christianity, n.: Sending telepathic messages to a Jewish ghost letting him know that you will accept him as your master and to ask him to remove a magical curse that was passed down to you because an old woman that was made from the rib of her partner ate a piece of magical fruit from a magical tree because a talking snake told her to.
Ask me again why I’m an Atheist?
Those who recognise that monotheism is one god too many, know it as:
Zombie Jesus Day!
The Parody
According to popular culture and today’s political-religious voices, this holiday all began with…
…the death of a Jewish martyr named Eashoa or Yashua (depending upon which etymology you follow) — who most people know by his translated name of Jesus or Isa — around 2,000 years ago. And then a few days later, it ended with…
…the apparent resurrection of the martyr to the least objective audience possible: Mary Magdalene, sometimes considered to be a love interest or equal leader. Major opposition to this last point is usually from the same people who naïvely think Jesus’s mother died a virgin. (All of this accepts, for the sake of argument, that the people in the story actually lived at that time, that Jesus was born to Mary, that he had a group of followers, etc).
Then some time afterwards, this strange and little-known sect was chosen to replace the polytheistic Roman pantheon as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church was born, complete with its equally absurd Doctrine of the Trinity (one god is three gods but is really just one god — presumably to keep the polytheistic migrants from pantheism happy).
Protestants, particularly ones from modern fundamentalist sects, don’t like this fact but: Catholicism is Christianity. There was no distinction and, with the exception of the schism over the power of the Pope which lead to the formation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it remained that way until the 16th century Reformation.
For those who haven’t yet completely signed over their rational and critical faculties, here’s the official story for those looking to join the club…
…and is only sanctified by you joining in the cannibalistic ritual of eating the god/man/father/son’s body and drinking his blood. No brains required. Brains…
The Reality
The festival of the Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess Eostre (or Ôstarâ) celebrates the rebirth of life after the long cold winter by marking the coming of spring, and observes the lunar calendar (as seasonal events have done throughout much of civilisation). Most people know it as Easter, and have bought into the claim that it originated with the death of a religious fanatic around 2,000 years ago.
Easter did not originate with the death of Jesus any more than Christmas originated with his birth. As with most Christian holidays, it was piggy-backed onto pre-existing holidays of the culture in which it spread, and then was later enforced and rewritten by the Church as if the original never existed. Hence the Eostre/spring symbolism and timing for Easter, and the Yule/winter solstice symbolism and timing for Christmas. Easter is timed to mark the end of Passover — a national & religious celebration of the story of a brutal god murdering thousands of innocent infants — making them follow a lunar, seasonal calendar. Hence the fact that both occur at seemingly random times between late March and late April, matching the Jewish month of Nisan (also called Aviv, or spring), marking the timing of the barley harvest. And don’t forget the Easter egg and its symbolism of new birth/life.
Rebirth, new life, resurrection… recognising an ongoing theme?
The Incredulity
I’ve clearly parodied the stories surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus, basing them in a more Catholic setting than Protestant as the former has been around the longest and the latter is cherry-picked from the former, but they serve to outline the outlandish beliefs surrounding the holiday being celebrated. I say celebrated, but the facts are that only a tiny percentage of the Christian population actually observe (or even know) all the requirements of this holiday, and the number of people who actually know the popularised Easter story is dwindling yearly. For most of the Western world, Easter is simply a 4-day long-weekend where we may have some nice meals and catch up with family, get away for a few days to the coast or snow, or do some DIY around the house to wash away the winter and prepare the house and garden for the coming spring and summer.
The latter is really what Easter is all about. We’ve come through the harsh winter, those of us left alive and healthy will now rebuild what winter has damaged, and life will begin again for the year — as can be seen all around with plant growth, spring lambs and the returned warmth of the Sun.
It’s a shame that some people voluntarily hang on to Bronze Age superstitions, from a time when humanity wasn’t enlightened enough to realise the reality of the annual wonders occurring around us this time of year. I understand why church and political leaders encourage and propagate such absurdities as it ensures their unrivalled power — particularly when you can threaten disobedience with eternal torture in a place that the threatened cannot be certain whether such an evil torment exists or not (enter the fallacy of Pascal’s Wager) — but for otherwise intelligent lay-people to do the same thing feels like collusion or appeasement. Something similar to knowing that you don’t need to outrun the lion chasing you to stay alive, merely that you have to outrun the person next to you. It’s a sick rationale from a sick system borne of sick minds.
Despite what believers reading this may think or say: I do not hate people of religion. I can respect the person while despising the belief, whether religious or political. Beliefs do not stop a person from being human, nor from being worthy of treatment as such. That’s the nature of secular humanism.
Humanity is more important than invisible friends.
loading...
“Protestants, particularly ones from modern fundamentalist sects, don’t like this fact but: Catholicism is Christianity.”
I’m pretty sure Christians have a strong foothold to dispute that ‘fact’ (see weblink).
www. jesus-is-lord .com/cath.htm
They believe in Christ but that’s pretty much where the simularities between Catholics and Christians end.
Only voted 1/10 stars? Your arrows of spite, they pierce my heart…
The link you provided contains long-disproved, laughable tropes from the not uncommon groups of people who think “their” sect is the only “True Christianity” (implying that everyone else calling themselves Christians are mistaken or liars). Just because someone has written a web page about a topic — even when fluffed up with cherry-picked verses from the Bible — doesn’t make it fact, rational or logically sound.
Who exactly do you think made the Bible? As in who do you think selected from the many books available at the time that were eventually combined into the volume we now know as the Bible? Using Bible quotes to attack the very people who gave you your Precious is ignorance personified.
Who do you think created all the dogma and doctrine of the original Christian church?
Who do you think took the words of an unmarried, radical Jewish rabbi and created a massive religion around it (that he wouldn’t even recognise today in all its thousands of sects, forms and fragments)?
What exactly do you think it was that the Reformation reformed into what is now Protestantism?
If you answered any of the above with anything other than the Catholic Church, you need to learn some history.
And when do you think this was done? If you give me a single date, year or even century, you are wrong. There were many councils and conferences held during the first 500 years or so of the Church’s early history that decided things such as the books that would (and wouldn’t) eventually be included in the Bible, the importance or not of Mary and Mary Magdalene (and the decision to demonise the latter), even a committee that decided upon whether Jesus needed to be a deity for any of these stories to be believable, and then invented the “Trinity” to glue it all together.
Protestantism is simply revised Catholicism: it’s most notable change being the decentralisation of the Pope’s authority and wealth to each Protestant sect’s leader. It is Catholicism Mk.II, if you will. It’s documented, historical fact; argue with history, not me. Calling Catholics “not Christians” simply indicates that the accuser is ignorantly (or dishonestly) trying to pretend the first 1,500 years of Christian despotism never happened.
It’s not all bad, though. It did break the back of the absolute power of Christianity by dividing and conquering itself. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment then led to the majority triumph of mankind over dogma and doctrine created by powerful men, enabling people to escape the darkness — and knowledge and human progress have exponentially grown as a direct and measurable result of it. The latter is not perfect and has had unintended consequences, I’ll agree, but it’s orders of magnitude better than what preceded it.
There is nothing disproved about the Biblical text vs the The ‘holy’ Roman Catholic church which has no bearings to the teachings of Christ, hence it is NOT Christianity.
I’m not quite sure what you mean, as your statement is oddly phrased. If you’re saying that nothing in the Bible has been disproved, then you’re obviously and provably wrong.
So if you’re comparing Catholic doctrines with Protestant doctrines, most of the Christian (Catholic or Protestant) doctrines I’ve seen bear no resemblance to the gospels. Most Christians are really “Paulines,” who prefer the teachings of Paul — who never even met Jesus — and the vengeful parts of the Old Testament, to the teachings attributed to Jesus. It defines the serious end of the penal code in many parts of America (as it did in the UK until 1965).
To declare any group as “not Christian” says far more about the claimant than the target (such as the ignoramuses who call Jews “God-killers”). How about you tell us who is worthy of your consideration as a Christian, bearing in mind the gospels make it abundantly clear?
“Most Christians are really “Paulines,” who prefer the teachings of Paul — who never even met Jesus — and the vengeful parts of the Old Testament”.
Actually Christians aren’t bound by the covenants of the Old Testament so I can’t see how they would ‘prefer’ them as they no longer apply (with the exception of the 10 Commandments). Saul/Paul may never have met Jesus, but according to Acts of the Apostles 9:3-19 (NIV), he was spoken to by Jesus.
A Christian is a follower of Chirst and his teachings (emphassis on forgiveness rather than justice) and in so practices the ‘fruits’ of the Holy Spirit: Love, Kindness, Joy, Peace, Goodness, Faithfulness, Longsuffering(Ability to endure persecution and ill-treatment, Patience) , Gentleness and Self-Control. (Galatians 5:22)
The Catholic Chruch blatantly rejects the Commandments of God by their idolation of Mary, calling the pope holy when he is not as only God is considered Holy, only God can forgive our sins not someone sitting in a booth….ect
Putting aside the suspension of disbelief required of all book-followers and the circular nonsense of a book declaring itself to be true for a moment… we’re talking about a passage from that book saying that a dead radical Jewish rabbi spoke to a former hunter of that rabbi’s followers and told him how to build a religion. And that actually sounds rational to you when you hold it up to critical examination?
The parallels between Paul and Joseph Smith, Mohammed, David Koresh, and other “god told me to tell you…” self-proclaimed revelation prophets is more compelling everyday. I wonder how Christianity would look today if Paul hadn’t picked up where the writers of the gospel left off?
“I wonder how Christianity would look today if Paul hadn’t picked up where the writers of the gospel left off?”
Not too different I would say.
Besides, Jesus isn’t dead. He rose up from the dead in case you forgot that bit.
@jeremy
I don’t think that Christianity without Paul would even remotely resemble the organisation as it is today. His stamp of authority and self-assigned role as lawmaker was probably more galvanising than the anecdotes from the gospels themselves.
Right, Jesus isn’t dead… and of course Mohammed flew up to heaven for a chinwag with God, and Aphrodite was born from the foam washed up from Cronus throwing the body of his father into the sea. As the purpose of this entire post is to mock the myth of the zombie Jesus, it’s remarkably unlikely that I’d forgotten that particular piece of that particular tale.
Actually what Paul did was explain the very meaning of Christ and Salvation through Christ. He didn’t change the message of Jesus but taught it with the emphasis on love, forgiveness and salvation.
Inspiring writing yes, but Christianity’s main focus has been on Christ and salvation and forgiveness by Christs death. In no way does Paul’s letter contradict this.
Besides, why on earth would you want to mock Jesus? Or refer to him as a zombie? Surely when someone dies in say an operating theater and is bought back to life 15 minutes later isn’t a zombie, but by your definition that person would be. Makes no sense to me or perhaps you have misunderstood the difference between living and dead.
@jeremy
So Jesus was unable to explain his own meaning and purpose during his own ministry? How helpful, selfless and not at all suspicious that someone should stand up and declare to be the official, infallible interpreter, no questions asked, of What Jesus Really Meant. More likely Paul was the first in a long line of opinion sources of what Jesus meant that still is going on to this day, which is what I meant above by self-assigned lawmaker — followed on by numerous Popes and now exploded out into the Pope-in-every-shack Protestantism format.
As always, you’re very selective in your interpretation of what you’re actually responding to. I clearly said that I was mocking the myth of the zombie Jesus (i.e. resurrection), not Jesus himself. I happen to think the core message (probably best exemplified by the Jefferson Bible, stripped as it is of all the magic and mysticism) is admirable. Unlike quite a few of the atheists I know, I am willing to accept that Yeshua bin Yusef did exist — however I am unsure if he was just one person, or multiple people of that time who have come under the umbrella of “the Biblical Jesus.” There is evidence for and against all three positions. And no: the quote you’re about to use to reply to this paragraph isn’t going to prove it one way or the other.
As Jesus wasn’t made into a god until hundreds of years after his death, for him to have walked a few days after his crucifixion can really only mean one of three things: 1) he wasn’t really dead (try learning about actual, modern crucifixions), 2) it never happened (who could think a witness could be biased?!), or 3) he was a zombie (this is not meant to be taken literally, in case it’s unclear). I’m excluding the magic and mysticism aspect, as we’re all grown ups here. That exclusion may be a problem for you, but I’m talking about repeatable, provable reality, not spoon-bending and magic ropes.
Slightly off topic… there’s a question that’s been nagging me for a couple of months now: are ‘Jeremy,’ ‘Vanessa’ and ‘Gordy’ really one, two, or more people? I don’t really expect an honest answer, but I’m always willing to give people a chance and I’m curious.
“So Jesus was unable to explain his own meaning and purpose during his own ministry?”
Not at all, Paul merely spread the word through his many travels.
The fact that you refer to Jesus as a zombie is mocking Jesus!
“And no: the quote you’re about to use to reply to this paragraph isn’t going to prove it one way or the other.”
???
I do believe Jesus said he was the son of God, not a God in the plural sense.
There was neither the magic all mysticism aspect involved but spiritual/supernatural intervention which was foretold in prophecy 100′s of years prior to Jesus even being born.
I don’t expect you or anybody else to believe it, it’s up to you to decide. That is the beauty of freedom of choice.
If you want ‘repeatable, provable reality’ , I suggest you look up Smith Wigglesworth.
I think we’ve gone about as far as is practical in beating this already-dead horse if we’re to maintain our sanity. Further comments closed.