The True Story of Christmas

This morning on NPR, one the republicans running for President, either Romney or Huckebee, said this the season to remember the true story of Christmas. I wonder if, whomever it was, knows the true story of Christmas. In any case here is the true story of Christmas.

Dec. 25 - In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. Nobody knows when exactly Jesus was born but we can be sure it wasn't on Dec. 25. The Roman god, Mithras, has his birthday on Dec. 25. Constantine co-opted this date and called in the birthday of Jesus in a political move. Several other gods, including Ishtar and Sol Invictus, also had their birthdays on Dec. 25.

Virgin Birth Story - All through the Mediterranean area, stories of miraculous and virgin births abounded. Ceasar Augustus was supposedly born of a virgin. Caesar Augustus was also considered a god. When the gospels were written, some 30 to 60 year after Jesus died, there were no witnesses to the actual birth. The writers, in trying to appeal to a as wide an audience as possible, included mythology the Romans and Greeks would have understood into the Jesus story. If the Romans or Greeks at the time believed their king was the son of a god, born through a miraculous birth, it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to get them to believe in Jesus. Especially if the people the gospel writers were writing to were disgruntled towards their rulers. Also, miraculous births are nothing new to readers of the bible. Both Sarah and Rachel were barren, yet were able to have children. Mary was supposedly a virgin and was miraculously impregnated. The virgin birth story is a modification and a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In it Isaiah is talking about his own wife and the imminent birth of his son.

Gospel Story of the Virgin Birth - When Peter and Paul were preaching and writing their letters in Greece and Rome, 5 to 20 years after the death of Jesus, they never mentioned anything about Jesus' miraculous birth. Why? Because the virgin birth didn't happen. The gospels writers added it later.

Bethlehem or Nazareth - Where was Jesus born? Peter and Paul, writer and preaching shortly after Jesus' death don't mention where Jesus was born. Later, the gospel writers try to create a birth story to make it appear he was the expected messiah. The gospels writers knew the old testament very well and they created a birth story to match old testament prophecies. Mainly that the expected messiah would be from the house of David.

3 Wise Men - This a retelling of the story in Genesis when 3 angels visit Abraham in his tent.

Slaughter of the Innocents - This is a retelling of the passover and the killing of all the first born sons in Egypt. There is no historical evidence of either event. Matthew tells the story of the escape into Egypt shortly after Jesus' birth yet Luke tells of Jesus' baptism, circumcision, and presentation to the temple after his birth. After they return to Nazareth. The escape into and back from Egypt is a retelling of Hosea 11:1 to make it fit the perceived prophecy of Jesus as messiah. Jesus and his family escaping to Egypt is also a retelling of Jacob and his family going to Egypt for protection.

Shepherds in the Fields - The only time shepherds would be their fields keeping watch would have been when the ewes were giving birth. The shepherds needed to sleep in the fields to protect the newborn lambs from predators. Ewes give birth in the spring not the middle of winter.

Genealogy of Jesus - Matthew and Mark both have genealogies of Jesus yet they are very different from each other. They also differ from the genealogy listed in the Old Testament. Again, this was done by the gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus was the messiah from the house of David.

If you take all this evidence and put it together, you can only come to the conclusion that the gospels writers were clever man and powerful writers for creating a history for Jesus when none existed.

The Death of the Egyptian First Born Sons

One thing that bothers me about people who take the bible literally is the story of the first passover. I am bothered that no one seems to care about the number of Egyptian males that must have died to prove that Yahweh is all powerful. According to Wikipedia, "Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million." Simple chance (50 out every 100 births is a male) tells us that at least half of the population should have been male, some 1.5 - 2 million upwards to 3 million males. Chance tells us that at least half of these males should be first born son. So, according to Exodus, some 750,000 to 1.5 million first born males were killed by the angel of death at the first passover. Of course the number may not be that high as not every male would be of child producing age or have had enough children to have had at least one son. What we can agree on is that a very large number, in the hundreds of thousands, of male children were supposedly killed. I have never seen any historical evidence of that many males dying at one time. Where is the evidence? One would think that somewhere in Egyptian history someone would have recorded this kind of disaster. Has a mass grave with this many mummies or bodies ever been found? Is there evidence of the economic disaster that would have befallen Egypt with this many deaths? If the bible is to be taken literally, where is the evidence? This is another example of why the bible cannot be taken literally, because logic and reason tells us that if that many males were killed, there must be mass graves, or someone must have written another independent account of what happened. Show me evidence of a mass grave or mass mummies, or historical records apart from the bible, and I will be less skeptical.

I am a Values Voter

After the last election, pundits and pollsters determined that W's (is for wrong) re-election hinged values voters. I would agree, W (is for wrong) was re-elected based on values. Unfortunately he was re-elected based on the wrong values. I am a values voters, and I will be voting based on values I hold dear. Here are the values I will be voting on:
1. I will vote on the value that a book written between 4000 and 1500 years ago is of little or no use in guiding the President.
2. I will vote on the value that the environment is our most precious resource and we need to protect it.
3. I will vote on the value that all people in the US need to be treated equally and fairly regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color, religious or non-religious affiliation, immigration status, or education.
4. I will vote on the value that torture, waterboarding, and rendition are illegal and immoral.
5. I will vote on the value that invading a sovereign country that has not attacked us or threatened to attack us is illegal.
6. I will vote on the value that importing oil from theocracies in the Middle East is not in our country's best interest.
7. I will vote on the value that our young men and women in uniform should not dying in a far off country because the US invaded for no good reason.
8. I will vote on the value that immigrants sneak into our country to make a better life for themselves and the families they left behind, and these immigrants need the help of our country.
9. I will vote on the value that religion has no place in the public life of our country.
10. I will vote on the value that public schools are the most important institution in our country and teacher deserve respect.
11. I will vote on the value that tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country are not in the best interest of our country.
12. I will vote on the value that three-quarters of a trillion dollars is too much money to have been spent on a war in a country the US never should have invaded.
13. I will vote on the value that health care for all is needed and long overdue.
These are some of the values I will be voting on.
The values I will not vote on are the values of religious fundamentalism, intoleration, division, discrimination, hatred, torture, and lying.
Now if I could only find a candidate that holds the same values as me.

Blasphemy

Recently I posted a message on the message board of a group I belong to. The gist of my message was that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. My reason for this thinking was the recent bruhaha over the teacher from England who was teaching in Sudan. The teacher allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammed. What transpired next baffles the imagination. Fundamentalist Muslims called for the teacher's execution for blasphemy. My contention in my message was that the teacher should have known better than to name anything Muhammed in a Muslim country. She should have known she was going to be teaching in a theocracy. The teacher, in my opinion, was ignorant of the country she was going to and she was ignorant of Islam. I stated she was one in a long line of westerners that showed how ignorant they were and that these examples only reinforce the perception in the Middle East that the west is ignorant of Islam.
Another member of the group wrote back and said to the effect, if a person's religious belief is such that they feel threatened by a child's toy, then they need to re-exam their beliefs. The writer from the group is absolutely correct. If you believe something and you believe it strongly enough, then your beliefs should be able to withstand any criticism. If however your belief is threatened by a child's toy, you need to re-exam your beliefs. How in the name of (insert favorite sky pixie name here) can a religion be threatened by naming a child's toy after your founder/god/prophet!? Get over yourselves! Are your beliefs in your sky pixie that weak? What exactly do you believe? One would think that naming something after your sky pixie would be a form of flattery. Think about it, everyday the children would see Muhammed and perhaps think about the person the bear is named for. Are the fundamentalists ready to call for the execution of every father that names their son Muhammed? Blasphemy I say! How dare the father compare their son to the prophet! How about Muhammed Ali? Should he be executed because he, a westerner, selected the name Muhammed when he converted to Islam? How ignorant could he be?
I believe that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. However, everyone in the world should be free to say anything they want, no matter how provocative. It is up to the people who hear the message to search their beliefs and decide how they will respond. Words are wind through our pharynx, as the writer put it. They are only as meaningful as the attention we give them. Naming a teddy bear, Muhammed, pales in comparison to the continued slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by suicide bombers in the name of god. Where is the talk of blasphemy when a suicide bombers kills himself and others in the name of god? Where is the outrage? Prove to me that your religion (every religion) is a religion of peace. The only way I will ever believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., are religions of peace is when there are no more wars, attacks, bombings, etc., in the name of god. There will still be wars in the world but no one will die in the name of their sky pixie.
Stop taking your religious texts literally! It is ridiculous to base your belief on things written between 1400 and 4000 years ago or more. These texts were written at time when humans lived in tents and were nomadic. Most of the population was illiterate. They were written before science was around to verify things. They events in the texts may have been based on actual historical events but they are also layered with mythology from all corners of the Middle East. Elements of Persian (7 day creation story), Babylonian (the flood), Egyptian (9 creation events), Roman (king is the son of a god, virgin birth), Greek (twins), and other mythology have made it into the bible and the koran. There is enough archaeological evidence to show their was a flood that was localized in the area of Caucasus area in Central Asia. There is also evidence that oral traditions can survive for thousands of years, i.e., Inuits in the Arctic have an oral tradition of Mammoths. Mammoths have been extinct for 10,000 years. The flood is very likely an oral tradition embellished from the end of the Ice Age. If the flood covered the whole Earth, how come only Middle Eastern place names are used?
The gospel writers built the Jesus story out of events in the old testament. Jesus walking on water is a retelling of Moses parting the waters. Jesus feeding the multitudes is a retelling of Moses feeding the multitudes in the desert. Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt for protection is a retelling of Joseph's family's going down into Egypt for help in Genesis. The story of the slaughter of the innocents is a retelling of the passover story in Exodus. Jesus entering Jerusalem on the donkey (colt) is a retelling of Zechariah 9:9-11. Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple is a retelling and embellishment of Zechariah 14:21. Jesus' sermon on the mount is nothing more than Psalms 119. Luke incorporates many elements of the story of Elijah into his gospel. John begins by retelling a hymn from Proverbs. Jesus' “I am” statements are directly from the burning bush in Exodus. Judah sells Joseph into Egypt; Judas sells Jesus. King Saul and Paul both tried to capture and kill servants of god. Both were overcome by god. As the saying goes, there is nothing ever new under the sun. There is nothing ever new in religious texts. The new testament is built on the old testament. The old testament is built on many myths from many different cultures. The koran is built on both the new and old testament, as well as other Middle Eastern myths.
The bible was built on other culture's mythology in the same way JRR Tolkien and JK Rowlings have taken northern European myths and created best selling novels. These authors took old stories and created something new. The writers of the old and new testaments did the same, They took old myths from neighboring cultures, or from the culture they were living in (Egypt, Babylon) and reworked them for their own culture, and called the new stories religious stories. The bible is in no way, shape, or form a work of god. It may have gods in it but it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairy tales.
We shouldn't believe what is written in any religious text any more than we should believe what is written in the Odyssey or the Iliad, both of which were written several thousand years ago, around the same time as the old testament was being written down, These books are based on historical events but one does not believe there were cyclops, sirens, golden fleeces, etc. It is the same with the bible. There are historical events in the bible but there is too much mythology for me to accept it as anything other than a book of mythology created in the mind of men.

72 Virgins

In one sect of Islam, if a suicide bomber blows themselves up along with any infidels, the person who did the bomber gets to pass to heaven where they spend eternity with 72 virgins. Apparently this is some kind of a reward for killing innocent people. I don't see how spending eternity with 72 virgins is a reward. Having been a virgin myself and having been with a virgin or two, the first-time experience wasn't all that rewarding. Basically my partner just laid their with her legs open. They wasn't much excitement to it. My partner was inexperienced and didn't know what to do. It seems to me, a much better reward would be 72 experienced woman, who could show the man a much better time. Being with an experienced woman who knows how to use her body and use a man's body is a much better reward. Perhaps the man that came up with this idea of heaven had never been with a virgin and just assumed it would be heavenly to deflower virgins.
The other thing I don't quite understand is: what happens after the bomber has deflowered his 72 virgins? I mean after 72 years, or 72 months, or 72 days, or 72 hours, or however long it takes to deflower 72 virgins, what happens next? Do the virgins stay deflowered for eternity or do they come back to you the next day with their maidenheads restored? If they come back everyday with their maidenheads intact, what does that say about the bombers manhood? “What's the matter, can't you deflower a virgin and get her to stay deflowered?” “What kind of a man are you?”
Also, where do the 72 virgins come from? Is their a bottomless pit of virgins that is continually drawn from? And, how rewarding is it for the virgins to lose their virginity, which I have been told is painful for the woman, and then have it restored, only to painfully lose it again? Doesn't seem like paradise for the woman? And what about female suicide bombers? Do they get 72 male virgins? And why 72? Why not one virgin per day for all eternity? I need someone to answer these questions for me to help me understand what this paradise is all about. In suicide bomber training school, are these questions answered? Someone help me to understand.
The claim that paradise has 72 virgins waiting for suicide bombers is absurd. This just another example of the perversion that is religion. Religion is dangerous but extreme religious beliefs like this have deadly consequences. The sooner the absurdities of belief are pointed out; the sooner those beliefs can be done away with.

Big G

At a RAFT meeting recently I brought up Psalm 82, where “big G” god calls a meeting of all the gods and takes all the “little g” gods to task for not helping humans the way they should. He then demotes all the “little g” gods and condemns them to death “like Adam.” Upon reflection of this passage, you have to wonder how much power “big g” actually has/had?
I have been reading a book by Thor Heyerdahl. Many of you probably know Heyerdahl as the anthropologist that sailed a balsa and reed raft from South America to Polynesia to prove that, the Polynesian Islands were settled by people from South America not from Asia as many anthropologists thought. The book I am reading is called Fatu-Hiva and it chronicles his wife's and his adventures in the 1930's on a small island in the Marquesas Island. The island being Fatu-Hiva. Heyerdahl originally went to the islands as a zoologist but quickly became interested in the culture of the island peoples, especially pre-Columbian culture. He began to collect cultural artifacts and noted cultural similarities between the Incas of Peru and the Polynesians. The native islanders told Heyerdahl stories about when the first people arrived. The people came from the east, from South America. The migrating people brought their gods with them, many continue to have similar names to the Inca gods from Peru.
Anyway, the point being, later the Spaniards and the English arrived bringing Christianity. If you read Psalms 82, you would think that the Polynesians, not to mention Native Americans, Aztecs, Incas, etc., etc., etc., would not have needed to be “converted”. They would already, at least have been Jewish or Hebrew, because “big g” would have been in control. And it would have been really easy to “perfect” them into Christians. But, alas for “big g”, that was not the case. Polynesian, Inca, Aztec, Native American, Japanese, etc., gods were still in existence and going strong. Apparently, big g didn't have a good press office or some sort of rotweiller to ferret out all the other gods. What a shock it must have been to the true believers and literalists when they got outside the borders of Israel and discovered that big g was not in charge. How could that be? Big g demoted all the pagan gods and sentenced them to death in Psalm 82, yet here they are.
In the book, the natives tell Heyerdahl about their skepticism of the early Spaniards and the missionaries that followed. The missionaries taught the natives, “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet the Spaniards put to death natives that refused to be “perfected.” The missionaries tried to convince the natives to do away with cannibalism, yet the priests practiced ritual and symbolic cannibalism. What a bunch of hypocrites! Hypocrisy continues to this day of course. You only have to open the paper and read it.
All big g would have needed to do, would have been to appear to all these other peoples around the world and put their gods to death. I guess, if you believe the Mormons, Jesus did appear to the Native Americans in North America. Of course, Joe Smith is the only person to record this event. Jesus did appear in Israel and tried to “perfect” his Jewish brethren but only after he was sacrificed for our sins did his followers try to spread the good news. But outside those two instances, there is no evidence that big g killed off any other gods. The Greeks eventually stopped believing in Zeus et al, the Romans gave up Jupiter et al, the Germanic peoples gave up Thor et al, and the Anglo-Saxon's gave up their gods, not to mention the myriad of Native American gods no longer in service but that was several hundred or several thousand years after the big sit down in Psalms 82. A true believer might then say, Christianity has spread around the globe and become a dominant religion, so Psalms 82 is true. Many gods have been destroyed by the spread of Christianity. But are these gods truly dead and gone? Or do we still acknowledge little g gods to this day?
Just look at any calendar and the answer is there in black and white. Our days of the week are named after gods that should have died 3500 years ago but didn't. Monday – Moon day (the moon was thought to be a god), Tuesday – Germanic god Tiw (related to Mars), Wednesday – Wodin's day (Germanic god Odin), Thursday – Thor's day (named for the Norse god Thor, the god of thunder), Friday – named after the Germanic goddess Frigga, Saturday – Saturn's day (named after the god Saturn), and Sunday – day of the sun god. Now for the months. January - named after the Roman god of beginnings and endings Janus (the month Januarius).
February - the name comes either from the old-Italian god Februus or else from februa, signifying the festivals of purification celebrated in Rome during this month.
March - it is named after the Roman god of war, Mars.
May - the name probably comes from Maiesta, the Roman goddess of honor and reverence.
June – this month was named in honor of Juno, Jupiter's wife.
Almost all of the celestial bodies you see when you look up at the night sky are named for little g gods. Why would big g give a place of honor to all these demoted gods? Is it because big g didn't have the power to put the gods to death or is it because the bible is a work of fiction created by talented writers?
Was Jesus real? Most people say yes. I believe there was an historical person on which the story of Jesus was founded. The early gospel writers superimposed the Jesus story onto existing myths to make it appear Jesus was more than he was. They did this to make Jesus appeal to as large a population as possible. The virgin birth story did not enter the Christian story until the 9th decade. There were however lots of virgin birth stories in the pagan religions of the Empire. The cannibalistic ideas associated with the Christian Eucharist in which the flesh and blood of the savior figure are eaten and drunk clearly have pagan origins. The account of a hero figure dying and returning from death is also present in many ancient pagan sources. Easter was a pagan word for spring and the return of the earth to life after the winter. That is why the crucifixion of Jesus was moved to the season of the Passover so that his victory over death could be celebrated at the same time the forms of life showed victory over the death of winter by coming to life again.
It would seem that big g did a poor job of killing off his rivals and their traditions.
Psalms was written maybe 3000 – 3500 years ago, so why did it take until the 16th century CE before Christians started to “perfect” other people? One would have thought the “perfection” process would have begun immediately. Why did it take until the invention of suitable sailing vessels for the good news about the death of other gods to begin to spread? Couldn't big g have worked a little faster? Or did humans need to “evolve” a bit more before we could invent big sailing ships?

Or maybe, the Bible is work of fiction and there is very little truth in it.