Category Archives: Extremism

Jesus, Jesus and more Jesus

Posted on by
6

You find me in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Not, fortunately, in the water but on the world’s only ocean liner, the Queen Mary 2. Dennis and I have been in U.S., both in New York and Washington DC, on a diplomatic mission to the White House. Well, a tourist visit anyway. As I dislike flying (a slight understatement) we are sailing home on the ship. It is a much more dignified and pleasurable way to travel.

Our visit left me wondering how you guys over the pond that I currently find myself on, cope. Not with your president (though heaven knows that too) but with the proliferation of evangelical Christians.

While visiting the Washington Monument in DC we had a small book pressed on us by a young boy whose father(?) stood a little way off. The cover suggested it was about America’s 250th. Inside it was the fourth gospel and the letter to the Romans. It ended up in the trash alongside dozens of others.

On the Metro we were treated to songs about Jesus by a small group of musicians who knew a captive audience when they saw one.

Outside the Capitol we were accosted by a young man on an electric scooter who asked as he glided by, ‘Hey guys, do you know God loves you?’ (He didn’t hear our reply. Perhaps just as well.)

I mean, how do you put up with this?

Worse though was my Facebook feed. I know I’ve grumbled about this before, back home in England, when every other post is about Jesus. But in the U.S. it was worse. I would say 9 of every 10 items items were about him. (Fortunately there are fewer now that we’ve put a few nautical miles between us and the Land of the Free.) You can see a small sample of the hundreds of inanities I received up top.

I did venture to put comments on some of them (Dennis says I was just winding up the witless. Someone’s got to). Responses varied, telling me that,

as I didn’t know Jesus I had no right to comment;

I would one day soon be on my knees at His feet (I did tell them this was more than unlikely given the state of my knees);

the Bible doesn’t suggest women shouldn’t be preachers and Jesus doesn’t say Christians shouldn’t pray ostentatiously in public (both, of course, are the case);

homosexuality is a grievous sin (I assured them it was a lot of fun too). Christians shouldn’t attend same-sex weddings (this one was particularly sad as one Christian couple who commented said they wouldn’t be attending their daughter’s wedding to another woman. As result their daughter now wouldn’t take their calls. I advised them to go ahead and attend and that it’d be okay. Loving Christians™ then swarmed in and told me how evil I was for encouraging the couple to endorse sin.) 

I didn’t comment on the numerous posts I was unfortunate enough to receive about Creation, which happened exactly as recorded in Genesis; Noah building his ark and collecting animals to survive a worldwide flood and ‘Evilution’ being Satanic. I was informed too that the resurrection, the Bible as the infallible Word of God and Jesus coming back soon are not ‘up for debate’. I mean what would be the point? Sometimes though the level of ignorance was so staggering and I took it upon myself to mention it maybe once or twice. Can I get an Amen, brothers and sisters?

Amidst all this, I encountered a couple of new stars in the Christian fundament: Martin and Millicent Sedra, and I’ll share my thoughts on this pair next time.

Lies, Damn Lies and More Lies (Part four of a three part rant)

Posted on by
4

I turned 71 last month. I know, I know, I don’t look it. I certainly don’t feel it. I feel no older than I did in my 40s, mentally at least. The body’s a little creakier than in was then. Another change I’ve noticed is how less tolerant I’ve become. I’m intolerant these days of other people’s crap including but not limited to Christians attempts to convince others that their superstition is the real deal, and Jesus will return any time soon. Here are a few more examples of the crap* we’re presented with everyday here in the UK:

  • Mass uncontrolled immigration is good for the country;
  • Digital ID cards for everyone will help control immigration;
  • Science is ‘settled’ about whatever agenda our leaders are promoting;
  • Climate change can be reversed;
  • Net zero is achievable and worth the vast expense it entails;
  • Outlawing the use of air conditioning, underfloor heating, bathroom radiators and tumble dryers will help achieve net zero;
  • We need to return to Christian values;
  • Jesus will never let you down;
  • Islam is a peace-loving religion;
  • Muslims deserve special protections. Jews, Christians, atheists and any number of others don’t;
  • Racism is exhibited only by white people. Other groups are not really capable of it;
  • Social media is the root of all evil;
  • Free speech causes most of society’s problems and must be controlled;
  • Wealth needs to be redistributed to achieve an equal socialist state;
  • When ordinary people object to being told lies they’re ‘far right’ and ‘divisive’. When the Left respond violently in support of the same lies we need to understand their frustrations.
  • The best way to secure peace is to go to war;
  • The NHS provides the best heath care in the world, and it’s free!
  • All cultures are equally valid;
  • Ordinary people know nothing. Elite leaders know best.

Since I reached teenage, I’ve endured six decades of this kind of propaganda. In the last couple of decades I’ve become so much more wary of it. It is all so much spin, manipulation, untruths. My bullshit detector is alerted whenever I hear a politician speak, a Christian apologist spout or the main stream media promote the same old agenda.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t know what’s ‘really’ going on, but I do understand why some people resort to their own explanations. They feel that whatever they’re told almost always feels a little ‘off’, doesn’t quite ring true. Invariably and at best it’s half-truths, the available evidence – if you can be bothered to hunt it down – failing to support the narrative.

I’m not interested any more. I – we – have been lied to too many times to accept anything at face value any more. It isn’t unreasonable to call it all out as crap. The onus is on those making the pronouncements to demonstrate they’re right, telling the truth, and not just blind-siding us with more spin and propaganda. We need only call it out for the crap it is. Let them do the work. They won’t of course and there’s not much we can do about that. But we don’t have to go along with it any more.

*I can supply links to all of these or you can Google them for yourselves. The point is they’re all real. 

Newspeak (part two of a rant)

Posted on by
1

I’ve been considering the changing meaning of words. I acknowledge that this happens over time: language evolves like everything else. My concern here is the deliberate redefining of words to suit a given (political) agenda. This often underhanded stretching of words to give them new meanings, actually diminishes them and renders them dangerous. 

As part of its definition, Merrian-Webster describes racism as ‘behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster ‘the belief in racial superiority): discrimination, prejudice, or violence against people because of their race.’

Violence, it seems to me, is hardly ever justified. I have detested it since I was a child. There can be no doubt that violence is sometimes motivated by racial hatred, but like all the words I’m dealing with here, racism as an accusation is overused to the point of meaninglessness. While other nations – the Scandinavian countries, the US, Scotland and Wales – proudly fly their national flags practically everywhere, here in the UK it has been deemed to be racist by some on the Left. It’s common for the Ukranian, Palestinian, Scottish, Welsh and LGBT flags to be flown here, why are the English and Union flags now considered to be racist? It might, at a stretch be that they are divisive, but then aren’t all flags? Isn’t that what they’re for, to declare a national identity that is distinct from that of other states? The British flag is no more ‘racist’ than any other. Neither is expressing genuine concern for immigration, which is dismissed by those who’ve failed to control it, as racist. How can it be when those coming into Britain are from a variety of ‘races’, many white and European?

It’s racist, and hateful too, say ‘community leaders’ and white liberals, to object to the treatment of women within Islam, or first-cousin marriage or frequently expressed anti-Semitism. ‘Racism’ in these instances is an attempt to shut down discussion and censure those with legitimate concerns. Similarly, for fear of being considered racist, authorities have failed to investigate (hateful) criminal activities by ethnic minorities. And while it’s become clichéd to say it, criticism of Islam and its practices is not racist: Islam is a religion, not a race, its practitioners drawn from a range of ethnicities. The true meaning of racism has been lost. Those who suffer from it abandoned in the transition of the word into meaninglessness.

My 95 year old mother was in hospital recently. She struggled to understand what some of the nurses were saying to her, either about her condition or treatment or something else. She didn’t know which because, between her deteriorating hearing, the mouth coverings some nurses wore and the accents of those from other ethnicities, she couldn’t understand them. What she couldn’t do, she felt, was say this to them. In Britain today it is regarded as racist to tell someone from another culture you can’t understand them. So she didn’t, nor did she mention the problem to any other of the medical team for fear of being thought racist. This is where we are in today’s Britain.

A Phobia of Hate (part one of a rant)

Posted on by
1

It used to be the case that when writing an essay or presenting an argument, the writer needed to define one’s terms. This way, parameters were set with clarity and, as we say these days, transparency about what was to be discussed. Sadly, this seems not to be the case any more. I don’t blame social media for this; it seems to me politicians have largely led the charge, using terms with usually clear definitions in ways that suit their own purpose, without any regard for that common understanding. Rarely do they make clear that this is what they are doing. The mainstream media are inclined to do the same. What we may think they’re talking about, they may not be. Perhaps both politicians and the media learned the trick from Christian commenters who are happy to change the meaning of words as they see fit (‘Atheists’, ‘myth’, ‘metaphor’ for example.)

I dealt with autism here. The term, and diagnosis, is now stretched so thinly that, according to the social scientist who first proposed the autistic ‘spectrum’, it has become ‘meaningless’. What other terms have been misapplied until they too have been rendered ‘meaningless’?

How about phobia? Strictly speaking a phobia is an irrational fear, one for which there is no real basis: arachnophobia, agoraphobia, claustrophobia, for example. Of course there may be real grounds for being fearful of spiders (some are poisonous) heights (if perched precariously on the top of a mountain) and enclosed spaces (if it is suffocating), but the terms arachnophobia, acrophobia, claustrophobia are reserved, or at least they used to be, for those whose fear is extreme and above and beyond the rational. The term phobia is now applied to anyone who expresses concern about or criticism of any movement or cause: homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia come to mind. The first of these started life as an irrational fear that one might oneself be homosexual. Now it’s considered to be, by those who attribute their not ‘getting on’ in life or being subjected to personal criticism, to be the result of their being gay. Certainly ill-considered remarks may be unkind, a word that more than adequately describes much of what is described as phobic in modern society. But being unkind does not equate with a phobia, nor is it against the law. Not yet anyway.

Similarly offensive, a word originally that originally signified a physical attack, the meaning it still carries in law. As Paul Simon once expressed it in a rather pleasant little song, ‘One Man’s Ceiling is Another Man’s Floor’: what I might find offensive, in the sense of hurt feelings, is not necessarily what you find offensive, unless you choose to allow it to be. That’s because ‘offence’ in the slack modern sense is ridiculously subjective: it is, it seems, not a problem to call for the death of Jews but it is offensive to show images of an ancient ‘prophet’. Touchy religious sensibilities, sometimes prone to take offence at the slightest provocation, do not signal a criminal or even a criminal offence. And yet that is where we’ve got to, certainly in the UK. Remember your mother teaching you that sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you? Of course this is not entirely true; words can cause emotional hurt. But this doesn’t mean those who use words critically merit investigation by the officers of the law.

Hate is a verb. Unlike its antonym love, it cannot also be a noun. I know, this is pedantic of me, but we’re talking about words and the damage they can cause when misapplied. To alter and stretch their meaning out of all recognition results in the problems we now have in (British) society. All of the accusations of ‘hate’ that fly around these days are, grammatically, ‘hatred’ though in fact, they rarely qualify as this either. According to Merriam Webster, hatred is ‘an extreme dislike or disgust or ill will or resentment that is usually mutual: prejudiced hostility or animosity.’ Hatred is a powerful, destructive emotion. Reasoned opposition to the political manoeuvring of minority groups is not really it.

Of course it is possible to take such opposition to extreme lengths that it may look a lot like hatred, but by and large it is not. I do not ‘hate’ religious group that try to impose their beliefs and practices on me or my society, but I do oppose them and their efforts. I also oppose those who claim that any opposition to their efforts constitutes ‘hate’. It rarely does so, but how convenient it is for those who don’t get their own way to have the accusation in their armoury. Which is not to say real hatred isn’t expressed, often in violent action, but strangely, as a society, we seem less concerned with such action. We are, apparently, required to understand the frustrations of those carrying them out; their grievance is genuine and heartfelt. Hurty words though are of much more concern.

 

Advice

Posted on by
3

Image sourced here

Good news, everybody. The UK Government has released its ‘advice’ to help us all avoid ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Thank God we have such intellectual giants as Keir Starmer to advise us on such matters. We must not, it turns out, treat Muslims ‘as a collective group’ with ‘fixed negative characteristics’.

This, it also turns out, is what human beings do with every group that exists, and every group that has ever existed, since the beginning of time. We lump people of comparable beliefs and behaviours together no matter how much each category protests they represent a multitude of nuanced perspectives: Jews, Christians, LGB, Trans, environmentalists, Mormons, atheists, feminists, Rastafarians, teachers, sinners, billionaires, politicians, Americans, journalists, the Right, the Left… They’re all subject to criticism as ‘collective groups’. This is often on the basis of the bad behaviour of a few of their ‘community’, or of a caricature of what a member of these groups is perceived to be (as a gay person, I speak from being on the receiving end of this kind of condemnation). It’s neither fair nor reasonable to do this, I agree, but it is what happens. But now we are ‘advised’ we must not do it of Muslims. Don’t criticise Muslims as a whole just because some of them are inclined to blow people up. Don’t criticise them collectively for the pronouncements of extremist preachers. Don’t even criticise them for the practices of the majority.

Okay. But shouldn’t that also extend to all the other ‘communities’ I’ve mentioned? Yes, and it would in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. While we continue to judge Christians as a whole, on the basis of the hypocrisy of some, LGB people because of the excesses of a few and Jews because of the actions of their state (Muslims and their trendy left-wing supporters do exactly this in the case of Jews), then why can we not judge Muslims similarly? You’d have to ask Starmer that. But don’t expect him to give you a straight answer.

Oh, and how long before this ‘advice’ becomes law? 

‘Those who most want to rule others are least suited to do it.’

Posted on by
4

More stories that we really should be questioning. First today, a perennial favourite:

We, the Left / Right / Green / Centrist / Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, and I as party leader, pledge to solve the country’s problems / Make America Great Again / limit taxes / reduce bills and the cost of living / build new houses / curb immigration / lift families out of poverty etc, etc. We have fully costed these policies and they are achievable, unless we discover they are not, which we might though this is unlikely, but we can’t be sure. This we promise.

Admittedly there’s a hint of scepticism in this particular paraphrase, but even so, once elections roll round again, plenty of us will be taken in by guff like this. However, politicians create more problems than they solve. The difficulties the world faces right now, those that are not the result of religion, have been created by our political leaders. Whatever they promise in order to gain your vote, they will deliver only a small fraction. Don’t believe anything they tell you. Vote for the party that tells you they’ll do f**k all, and as well as being impressed by their honesty, you will find you’re not disappointed. Democracy is broken. As Douglas Adams put it:

It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

And:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

We really are this much stuffed. And that’s before A.I. takes charge. 

Second, a much repeated mantra in the UK today:

Britain is a fully integrated and wonderfully diverse society. Diversity is truly one of our strengths. We also need people from other cultures to do menial jobs and boost the economy. We must be tolerant and understanding of the cultural practices of some of these newcomers, even if, for example, their attitude towards women and Western values is markedly different from our own. This doesn’t mean their beliefs are any less valid. Anyone who questions this or suggests we are not in fact a fully integrated, diverse society is a hater, racist or fascist. Such individuals are the cause of division. Diversity is our strength.

This sort of rhetoric is typical of the UK’s Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. If ever there was anyone who should on no account be allowed to do the job, it is Sir Keir. He has clearly watched too many episodes of Bridgerton in which all races and cultures enjoy a sumptuous life, rubbing along happily together in a comfortable upper class milieu. While many of us do co-exist happily with our neighbours from elsewhere, Britain today is not quite like Bridgerton.

According to Sir Keir, extreme right-wing views among the settled indigenous population prevent it from being fully realised. It is this faction who refuse to compromise or make any concession to accommodate the cultures who now live among us. This is simply not true.

Many cultures have assimilated into the British way of life, but equally many have not and do not wish to. Like Christians who shun ‘the world’ there are newcomers to the British Isles, many Muslims in particular, who reject the way of life here and seek to assert their own cultural values. Many of these are at odds with hard fought Western principles: the equality of women and gay people, religious tolerance, the humane treatment of animals, the long established rule of law, the rights of those who do not subscribe to the tenets of Islam. For many, such people are kaffar, infidels of lesser value than those within the Muslim fold. They see no reason to compromise or integrate with them. And yet, the obligation to do so is theirs; they are the ones who have chosen to make their homes in the UK just as it is. To try to change it to be more like the cultures they have come from – escaped from in many cases – is not how asylum works.

Starmer and his government, meanwhile, blame the indigenous population, many of whom are of immigrant stock themselves, for the lack of assimilation and unity. To teach them the error of their ways, he plans to appoint an ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ to champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred when directed, as he or she sees it, at the Muslim community. This, you’ll note, is a process intended only to work in one direction.

You might wonder why, if we’re already living in Sir Keir’s wonderful Bridgerton-esque society (the only division being caused by pesky extreme right-wingers) such an appointment is necessary, but if Sir Keir thinks it is, then surely it must be so.

You may have your own examples of the kinds of stories we’re told today that don’t hold up to closer inspection. You may feel I’ve been conditioned to feel uncomfortable with the particular narratives I’ve looked at, and you would no doubt be right. I’d be interested to hear your views.

 

More Questions Than Answers

Posted on by
6

In today’s troubled world, we are fed stories intended to convince us of the rightness of the direction in which we’re travelling. I’ve chosen some that have been circulating in the UK for a while now and comment on them afterwards: remember, question everything! While I’ve paraphrased the stories, I’ve tried to represent them as accurately as I can. You can always click on the links to access their source. I stress that I’m not claiming there’s no evidence for these narratives; there may well be, at least for elements of some of them. I offer them simply as the stories they are, ones that are repeated often, widely circulated and widely believed. The evidence or absence of evidence for them is neither here nor there. It’s the stories as presented by those who want us to believe them that count:

The number of people with autism, children in particular, has expanded exponentially recently. We don’t fully understand why this should be but as we’ve found out more about autism, we’ve come to realise that far more people have the condition than was previously thought. In fact, we now recognise that everyone is on the autistic spectrum somewhere. What this means, for children in particular, is that extra provision needs to be made for them in school and additional money must be found to address their problems.

Except… Dame Uta Frith, the psychologist who first proposed that autistic traits were on a spectrum now says the attempts to diagnose and place every one on this spectrum somewhere is not what she intended. In fact, the overreach that has led to this represents a broadening of the definition of autism to the extent it has become meaningless. In consequence, those who do exhibit genuine artistic traits are overshadowed by those with traits well within the boundaries of normal and are often overlooked. This story, therefore, doesn’t stand up.

Unless we reverse or halt climate change, the planet, and life on it, is doomed. To achieve this the UK must go further and faster, eliminating all fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. It doesn’t matter how much this will cost households, businesses and the UK economy: for the sake of the planet, Britain must be a world leader in this endeavour.

So many questions! (Some already addressed here.) Is climate change as calamitous as some scientists and unqualified commenters suggest? There are other scientists who think not. And what about those dates? Where did they come from? Were they chosen arbitrarily or is there good scientific evidence that if they are missed there will be no reversing climate change? Which leads to, ‘can climate change really be reversed? Can it even be halted?’ We might ask too how much the current, liberal bombing going on in practically every part of the world is accelerating climate change (and why doesn’t the media ask this question?) Does the UK’s importing of gas and oil from other parts of the world really reduce its greenhouse gas emissions? (No) How much gas and oil are involved in the making, functioning and maintenance of wind turbines? How much agricultural land will be lost when the planned 500,000 additional acres of countryside are given over to solar farms? How many animal habitats will be destroyed? Why must the UK, with its 0.8% contribution to carbon emissions, be a (or even the) World Leader in Net Zero? Does any other nation notice or care what the UK is doing? Do China, USA, India or Russia feel compelled to emulate the UK’s virtuous example? (No). Is Net Zero unachievable in any case?

More stories next time…

Showing Off

Posted on by
5

We interrupt this blogcast to bring you breaking news of shenanigans in the wonderful, wacky world of religion.

There’s been a kerfuffle here these last few days after Muslims gathered in Trafalgar Square to engage in mass prayers (that’s mass as in ‘3,000 men‘, not Mass as in the cannibalistic ritual beloved of Catholics.) This was not well received by many in the capital with a number of politicians on the right questioning whether it was really the Good Thing the Muslim mayor of London (and number one Donald Trump fan), Sadiq Khan, thought it was. Sadiq is himself is a Muslim and was present at the pray-in, taking selfies with his admirer. One politician who thought this wasn’t kosher (am I confusing things here?) was Nigel Farage – Donald’s real number one fan – who suggested that if he were ever to become Prime Minister (there’s a chance), he would ban ‘performative public prayer’ of the sort witnessed in Trafalgar Square.

This seems to me not an unreasonable proposition given the Quran (Surah Ma’oon, 107:4-7) regards ostentatious public prayer gatherings as not quite the done thing:

So woe to those who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers; those who show off…

Naturally, Christians have waded into the controversy, wailing that should Muslims be stopped from enjoying prayer spectaculars, they too might be prevented from doing the same thing. Some fear carol singing and pushing their faith on others who have no interest whatever in hearing it might similarly be prohibited. Of course, banning public prayer would not, unfortunately, include carol singing or proselytising on account of the fact that neither of these two activities are prayer bonanzas in and of themselves.

The authors of the Bible also seemed to think that ‘performative prayer’ is a no-no. As Jesus’ script writers have him say in Matthew 6:5-6:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Let’s not forget that as well as being God incarnate for brainwashed Christians, JC is a prophet in Islam. Both Christians and Muslims are prepared, naturally, to ignore their holy books, their prophets even, when they take to the streets and squares of modern cities ‘to be seen by others’ as they debase themselves in front of imaginary gods. It’s not Nigel Farage who wants to forbid ostentatious public displays of piety. Jesus and Mohammed got there first.

As a post script, can I mention that as an atheist, I find these prayer pantomimes, by whichever brand of the deluded, to be both unnecessary and offensive?

No, I thought not.

Jesus the Great Revolutionary

Posted on by
Reply

According to Matthew and Luke’s gospels, Jesus was a revolutionary. He wanted to see the world turned around, the very meaning of the word revolution. He preached that the world as it was would be destroyed and remade, this time with the social order reversed. Those who had been first in the old order – the rich, the powerful, the cruel – would be made to be the last, while those who were formerly last – the poor, the downtrodden, the lowly, the compassionate – would find themselves in first place. They’d be best in show, the new top dogs and, in ways that really mattered, rich. Meanwhile, those who had really committed themselves to him, his closest followers, would become the rulers with him of the renewed revolutionised order that he envisaged: his Kingdom of God.

How would all this happen? Jesus’ Father in Heaven would soon be sending the Son of Man to set the revolution in motion. This powerful being, who perhaps Jesus envisaged as being none other than himself, would ensure all the unimaginable but necessary changes would be achieved. There would be some violence of course, because you can’t have a revolution without at least a little violence:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (The Prince of Peace himself in Matthew 10:34)

Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10)

Once the old is done away with and the new order established, there would be something of a socialist utopia on Earth. Everyone would share what they had; each would have his or her needs met by everyone else. Even those who came late to the party would enjoy all the rewards the new Kingdom had to offer (Matthew 20:1-16). There’d have to be some slaughter too of course: the one who advocated loving one’s enemies looked forward to exacting bloody revenge on his:

“But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.” (Luke 19:27. See also Revelation)

Except of course, none of this happened. The Son of Man did not emerge from the clouds when Jesus expected him to. He himself did not become the Son of Man, ready to kick-start the great social revolution. Instead, the rich, the powerful and the cruel put an end to Jesus’ revolutionary ideas; they were gaining too much traction among the poor and downtrodden and needed to be quashed. An uprising couldn’t be ruled out, specially as Jesus recognised the need for force:

From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been coming violently and the violent take it by force. (Matthew 11.12)

He predicted too that blood would be spilt, going so far as to recommended his followers arm themselves:

He said to them… ‘the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’ (Luke 22:36-38)

According to the gospels, the Jewish religious leaders persuaded the Roman authorities to do away with this dangerous revolutionary and insurrectionist. Once they were made aware of him, the Romans were more than happy to oblige. They mocked Jesus’ aspirations as King of the Jews and crucified him alongside other ‘rebels’ (Matthew 27:38).

His followers however were not yet ready to let go of him or his revolutionary ideas. Perhaps they saw the possibility of their ruling the world slipping from them. They continued to preach that he would appear again, possibly as the Son of Man, to bring about the revolution he had foreseen.

This is, as I say, Matthew and Luke’s version of events. The writers of the fourth gospel would jettison the failed New-World-Order narrative, building their own Superman-Jesus and dispensing entirely with the great social revolution. In their story, the Kingdom of God is ‘not of this world’ (John 18:36) but only in people’s heads.

The four gospels are, of course, make-believe; allegories of the hoped for Messiah. The Kingdom of God, the revolutionary leader, the reversal of the social order are what some of the earliest cultists wished for, looked for, hoped for. It is their aspirations that are reflected and embodied in the earliest gospels. Like the hopes and dreams of every cultist before and since, they came to nothing.

Many of today’s Christians would not, in any case, have cared for the Kingdom of God that Matthew and Luke’s Jesus is made to promote; far too much socialism and the wrong sort of people in charge. Jesus’ new Kings of the World would, in any case, have made a mess of things in much the same way as all those who took control in the revolutions the world did actually experience. Power, as Lord Acton put it, corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Better for Jesus that he became a personal saviour, confined to the minds of those who think he really existed, a mere revolutionary in the head.

What Is Truth?

Posted on by
1

I’m sceptical (or skeptical if you’re in the US). It’s a legacy of my years of believing the promises of Christianity. Preachers, pastors, Bible study leaders told me for 25 years that the promises of the bible, of Jesus himself, were all true. And like a fool I believed them. Jesus had made a new creature out of me; he loved me; he was guiding my life; he was returning soon; I’d be resurrected; I’d live in heaven forever… and on and on.

What a preposterous set of propositions! It took my Great Realisation, my own personal revelation that there was no God, to make me see how ridiculous they were.

It is this that left me with a legacy of scepticism. If I’d been misled all this time by people I respected and admired, what else was I accepting as true that very well might not be? I wasn’t going to be fooled again and so began to question practically everything I was told by authorities, experts and the media. If it seemed ‘off’, as we say these days, not quite right or too good (or bad) to be true I asked, ‘Who says so?’, ‘How do they know this?’, ‘What is the evidence?’, ‘Do they jump to conclusions or is their reasoning sound?’, ‘Why should I believe what they say?’ It’s exhausting, I assure you, having to search out the evidence – the primary sources of information – and to sift through it, recognising any bias that has been imposed on it. It’s either this or I must accept without question that everything I’m told is true. I can’t do that any more.

Here are a few examples of claims that I’ve been sceptical of on the recent past:

We are being guided by the science, said politicians during Covid to ensure compliance with whatever lockdown measures were being imposed. Did this really just mean was ‘we are being guided by our interpretation of some rather suspect data’? It became clear after we emerged from the hysteria surrounding the pandemic that this was the case.

Tens of thousands will die of Covid unless you comply: this based on computer predictions which turned out to be very far from accurate: the suspect data that ‘guided’ politicians.

A woman can have a penis. A man can have cervix. Yes, our politicians told us this during our recent fixation with transgenderism. Whatever you think of people changing sex, these two statements, designed to change hearts and minds, if not penises and cervixes, are patently false. Whatever was guiding those who said such things, it certainly wasn’t ‘the science’.

No more irresponsible, undeliverable promises. So said the Prime Minister exactly a year ago. I’m not going to be sceptical or cynical about this. I feel sure it’ll turn out to be true. Is he implying though that promises made earlier than this were indeed ‘irresponsible and undeliverable’. Surely not.

We will not raise taxes on working people (and energy prices will fall by £300 in the long term), Labour politicians, now the government, said only last year in an attempt to gain our votes. I was sceptical about this, as with much they said, and for the first time in many years Labour did not get my vote. Taxes have increased considerably for working people and everyone else in the last year and are set to rise again this week. The price of energy has risen too, by 18%, and will do so again in January. A £300 reduction by 2030, if it happens at all, is not really going to offset this by much. This was all very predictable; since when do politicians tell us the truth in order to get us to vote for them?

Anything Donald Trump says. Insert your selection here.

The NHS is the envy of the world. Pundits and politicians are very fond of this one. They like to add too that the NHS is underfunded. But the NHS is expensive, management heavy and wasteful. Is it really the envy of the world, and if it is, so what, when it’s constantly in crisis at home?

The BBC is the envy of the world. It is impartial and balanced. Is it? A number of independent reviews have determined that it has its own agendas and biases. During lockdowns it fuelled hysteria and now contributes to climate change panic. Rather than reporting facts, it tells us too often what we’re meant to think about issues. It has also been rocked over the past dozen years by sleaze and scandals.

Islam is a religion of peace. So many questions about this one. Many Western politicians have claimed something like it. President George W. Bush did, shortly after 9/11. Perhaps ordinary Muslims are committed to peace but there are many Islamists (the term now used for Muslim extremists) are evidently not: as well as 9/11 there have been acts of Islamist terrorism in London (7th July 2005), at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, in Manchester, the slaughter in the street of an off duty soldier, the massacre of Israeli young people in October 2023, the killing of Christians and others in Nigeria.. Is ‘Allahu Akbar’ really a cry of peace?

We can halt or reverse the climate changes we ourselves have caused. Can we? Who says? (Greta Thunberg, yes, but no actual scientists that I can find.) We can perhaps mitigate and slow down the change, and we should. But the climate will continue to change. Are these changes solely the fault of us humans – we’re contributing to the pace of change, certainly – when the climate has been in constant change from time immemorial?

I was accused of trying to be a maverick in a recent comment on an old post. Honestly, I’m not. It’s more a case of ‘once bitten, twice shy’; I’m not going to be told ever again what to think, especially not by those who don’t present good reasons why I should (I’ve Jesus to thank for this). Everything needs to be questioned, otherwise our minds are not our own. Be sceptical.