What the hell did Jesus change (that wasn’t the work of the Church)?

I always seem to see Jesus of Nazareth as a figure being portrayed as a figure whose actions would change the course of human history, in terms of the influence of the Christian in the world of politics, and I can’t help believing that’s a crock of shit. In the historical sense, assuming Jesus even existed historically, the guy did not do much more than preach the coming kingdom of his “God” Yahweh against the Roman state, and got crucified in the end. He didn’t do much more than die for his beliefs.

We should all be aware what actually changed the world in the way that people think Jesus did: it was only the Roman Empire adopting the Christian faith as its state religion that changed the course of history, not Jesus preaching in Judea and dying on a stauros. Only after Jesus supposedly died did his followers spread word of his teachings and his supposed death and resurrection that anything about Jesus changed the course of human history. Jesus’s supposed life and death had nothing to do with it, and without the Church and the Roman Empire his life would have been a blip in the history of the human race, and if he were remembered as just another casualty of the narcissism of the Roman Empire. If he lived, all he did do for the nascent Christian movement was give them a messiah to revere and a kingdom of heaven to look forward to forever, always within their lifetime and never to appear.

It’s amazing – and not in a good way – how even in the secular world people like to kiss the ass of the “Christ” and paint him as the luminous figure that the Church made him out to be.

Happy Pallid Incompetence Hanging From A Tree.

11 responses to “What the hell did Jesus change (that wasn’t the work of the Church)?

  1. I guess in part that might be because secularism as we know it came out of Christian culture, even if it was a reaction to the Church. For all those people influenced by Christianity over the centuries, I expect the teachings ascribed (rightly or wrongly, and I suspect a lot of wrong) to “Jesus” might have been life changing for them (whether seen as beneficial or irksome), though the amount that any Christian society held to “his teaching” in practice is questionable (indeed, if they were workable at all as presented). Did the myth change history? Well it might have influenced a slew of countries that ended up becoming quite aggressively dominant and expansionist, just as Islam did. I don’t think that is quite what they mean though, as they are often referring to something intellectual or spiritual. What I find trying is the bleating messages, not just of Christians, but of fans of the Dalai Lama, the Pope, any of those spiritual big cheeses, telling how we can save the world through love, compassion, etc etc. How long to you have to run a program that doesn’t work to tell that it isn’t going to work, just because it works in your own exceptionally arranged life? Could it be that they aren’t looking at the right problems, so their solution can’t work?

  2. Good article!

    You said “It’s amazing – and not in a good way – how even in the secular world people like to kiss the ass of the “Christ” and paint him as the luminous figure that the Church made him out to be.”

    That makes me sick.
    It’s as if they are desperate to say “See, christians? We’re not so bad. Please accept us! Don’t burn us alive anymore!”

    They don’t have the balls to turn their backs on this sick fiction. They just turn a little bit sideways.

    • I’m glad you like the article, considering it’s basically a short rant.

      The idea of needing to appease the Christians, even though they ought hold no authority in the secular age, has to stick in one’s throat a bit. And in America, given the way they seem to act, it’s like trying to appease the bully instead of kicking him in the balls.

      • I didn’t think Crowley was very fond of Christianity. He always seemed to invest a lot of time trying to intimidate the Christians by calling himself The Beast.

      • He trolled them. I’ve seen at least one article written by him that went something like “Wait until I tell you about the time I evoked the demon __________!!! Oh that was terrifying!!!”

        But I mentioned hebrew, not christianity re: Crowley. Hebrew is the root of it, and I prefer to get to the root of the problem. If it wasnt for the jews, or someone like Constantine, there would be no christianity.

        For some reason “western” occultism is heavily based on hebrew, the jew “god” names, numerology, angels, qabalah etc and I think Crowley played a huge part in that even if he evidently didn’t care about “christ” or the “christ consciousness” new-age nonsense. Why base an entire magickal system on a nothing tribe of ignorant illiterate savage goat herding manipulative desert dwellers instead of a more civilized Asia or Europe?

      • What bothers me about that is, why would Crowley go on about summoning a demon and be terrifying? If I were going to tell people about any encounters with demons I have in the future, I would probably have a more positive attitude, but then I like the demons anyway.

  3. Edit to add

    It just frustrates me to no end to read a promising work only to eventually find this kind of christian / new-age “christ-consciousness” idiocy or hebrew nonsense. At least I don’t find much related to Islam and for that I am thankful.

    See? I can rant too. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s