People who are familar with the ongoing evolution vs. creation debate are well aware that
there are many creationists advocating that the theory of evolution will lead to a "world order", that evolutionists
are a part of some type of "conspiracy", and the reasons for being rejected from science publications is because of evolutionists
"not wanting to have their religious faith challenged." In contrast, evolutionists will make brief responses to
these objections such as "creationism is pseudo-science", "evolution is a theory backed by empirical evidence" and when it
comes to creationists themselves, "their arguments are poor, outdated, and just plain sloppy." Everyone except creationists
seem to agree. What does this have to do with Jesus-mythers?
Here we will construct an effective analogy in order to expose the fallacies of the Jesus-myth
proponent-agenda. To start off with, we will note the differences similarities in the methodology and approach of both
creationists and Jesus-mythers just to see what they might have in common:
- Creationists are usually Christians and most if not all are religious people; Jesus-mythers
are more likely to be atheist/agnostic, new age spritualist, or part of an anti-Christian belief system.
- Jesus-mythers and creationist's materials are not accepted by mainstream society and
are often rejected as being plausibly acceptable for their theories.
- Both creationists and Jesus-mythers use the same materials without being contemporary
or updating their arguments, for instance, creationists commongly say "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics",
Jesus-mythers say "Jesus was a sun-god derived from preceding pagan myths."
- Although often addressed and answered by debating opponents, creationists and Jesus-mythers
will continualy use their same objections often ignoring the points being made and making effective rebuttals or refutations,
making much of their argument seem pointless and factually distorted.
- Many proponents of creationism and the Jesus-myth hypothesis lack credentials for the field
of expertise they become involved in; creationists are ignored sometimes for the lack of their scientific credentials (Kent
Hovind is an example often questioned by evolutionists), while Jesus-mythers frequently publish websites and write books
authored by many possessing no sort or lack of academic qualifications to serve as disciplined trustworthy historians.
So what's the problem? The answer is hypocrisy, atheists rely on evolution
in their philosophy in the origin of life in a naturalistic concept to why everything currently exists. While not all
of atheists are proponents of the outdated arguments of the Jesus-myth hypothesis, there are many on the internet that
have gone as far as to devote websites made to posit that Jesus Christ was never an historical person. The same can be said
for Christians, however, who believe that the theory of evolution somehow destroys the traditional Christian values and beliefs,
but just as well, there are those that accept evolution as a valid scientific theory compatible with the belief in God, just
as there are atheists who have no problem affirming that Christ existed historically while still maintaining to their
atheism. The hypocricy in this arugment is trying to seal the objections of criticism by applying a double standard:
in which Christians must rely on a literal Genesis creation account and accept Jesus as an historical person, while some
prevalent internet "infidels" must rely not only on pure naturalism (i.e., everything is programmed only by natural
law and "miracles are impossible"), but they must also come up with ways to denounce the existence of the historical
character personage of Christ. Either way, the doube standard is used to create the sense that "I base everything
I believe in on evidence and your perspective is just simply incorrect and false." An example of this can be demonstrated
by putting it this way:
"The theory of evolution disproves Christianity."
"What about theistic evolution?"
"You're a Christian aren't you? You are supposed to believe in a literal Genesis creation
"That's what you think, but I see no problem that God used evolution in creating life, it
doesn't neccessarily have to be a literal interpertation to affirm my belief."
"Yeah well.....what if Jesus never existed?"
Extreme atheists may find it uncomfortable that Christianity might be based on a person who
actually lived, because with this comes the chance that if he did in fact exist, Christianity still serves a purpose neccessary
for human morality and life.This is most likely the cause for going out and disproving the existence of an historical Jesus,
because if the atheist has the advantage of both a biological scientific consensus and an historically valid opinion,
then atheism is true and Christianity is false. It is also the same method sometimes used by creationists, who must have a
literal interperation of a Genesis creation account in order to affirm the foundation of their religious belief that Jesus
was crucified and rose from the dead.
Unfortunately, this has created religious controversy amongst Christian denominations and attracts
negative attention from secular individuals. This often creates the idea that due to biological evidence, religion is
deteriating and Christianity is based on ancient superstitions. The very fact that the arguing persists amongst believers is
a clear sign that the religion itself is crumbling in the face of modern science. Nevertheless, there are Christian believers
who ultimately see no controversy between religion and what may be considered modern science. With this in mind, extremists
must go to the height of tearing down the last of the foundations in order to destroy the Christian religion completely: by
removing Christ from the historical picture. Without an historical Christ, the Christian religion is a modern mythology based
on primitive outdated practices and serves as to no use for our destiny beyond a mortal life or our life's intended purpose,
if it was indeed intended. It seems to reveal a motivation that drives such atheists into a mad frenzy that they must get
control of in order to sustain their beliefs. Just as many religious believers find it highly offensive the idea that we are
a higher species descended from lower species.
The second part of this analogy will be to tie up these purportions and give them
the light that they so well deserve just by the use of common sense. Some Jesus-mythers pose that "real historians" do
not accept the notion of an historical Jesus and have long realized that he is mere myth, with this in mind, we might ask:
why is it taught in high school history textbooks that Christ was a real figure? If Jesus-mythers want to have a fair shot,
they might also consider the objections of creationists to the material "evidence" that is being perpetuated in textbooks
to this day, two examples are peppered moths, (which are being pounded to death by creation websites) and vestigal structures
found in whales, said by creationists that whale physiology reveals that the "leftover bone legs" are used for reproduction
and are not at all useless or "vestigal." It was as Kent Hovind put it: "let's take the lies out of the textbooks", so indeed,
if it has been proven that Jesus is a mere mythological character, why to this day is he considered to be a real historical
person in the textbooks? Religious controversy? Apparently no one has a problem with teaching the theory of evolution in high
school textbooks without upsetting the religious, but people must have a problem with saying Jesus was just a myth? Exactly
how valid is evolution, if we are to apply a fair anaylsis? Another Kent Hovind quote: "If all
that evolution has to rely on is outdated material that is still being used in textbooks today, why is it still being used?
Where is the real evidence for evolution?" Therefore, if the creation position is truly that strong, should we not consider
it as plausible? And if the Jesus-myther position is already proven to be historically true, shoudln't this be taught to everyone?
To help enlighten, to help educate?
If that is not the case, and what has been said in these objections of creationists and
Jesus-mythers is accurate, then by the textbooks themselves have they become deceptive and should be revised. Aren't textbooks
supposed to offer education and to inform people? If textbooks today are containing such errenous information that is non-contemporary,
then such information should be removed. However, this isn't the case, that is, if these criticisms are correct despite they
confront the consensus issue, we are left to assume either that the textbooks are deliberatly lying and are a part of said
"conspiracy" or, they are filled with accurate information and the arugments made against the evidence are simply incoherent
and invalid to begin with.