Re: virus: Belief and Knowledge (was: The truth about faith)

John ''I Take Large Steps'' Williams (
Sat, 05 Jul 1997 08:21:40 -0400

Eric wrote:

>I've been thinking a bit about just exactly how *much* influence *one*
>man or woman can have...My question is: how many millions of
>people must live to bring about one *great* human, such as these?
>Or, is it, in fact, at all related to the sheer population of humans on

Jesus was a man; Christ is a meme. (And the wrong one, at that)
(Ha! Post-modern little-old-me. Still can't resist the urge to say "wrong.")

Jesus was one person; he surely could not have had this effect alone.
Rather, he had the support of a small group of religious liberals and
outcasts, which later grew into the support of the State when the Caeser
was converted. Not much changed when the Caeser was converted; one day,
Christians were being thrown to the lions, another day, pagans.

Some would say that Jesus became this sucessful through the support of God;
but I contend that the message got confused. If God was intending to speak
to us directly here, it got garbled in the wire.

Bishop John Shelby Spong[1] of the Episcopal Church says that Paul really
doesn't seem to have changed much because of his conversion. Like the
Romans, one day Paul was persecuting Christians, and then the next he was
persecuting the gentiles.[2]

The point, on this list of memetics? The current Christian tradition did
not start with Christ. It started the first time Mug said "that tree is
God," and whacked Wump on the head with a rock when Whump disagreed.
"Christianity" as popularized is just a shiny package surrounding an old
idea, to attract people who wanted to feel they were revolting against the
order. It's not the Christianity of Jesus.

The major difference here (a la Nietzsche) is that Christianity is packaged
in such a way that the opressed do the opressing and feel they are the ones
in charge. The Beatitudes got all fucked up.

>And this all comes into this now: how much of an effect (=meaning!!) can
>we possibly have?

Only if we convert the Caeser.

You up to convincing the Pope? Think he'll listen?

> Say we joined forces here, John.

>[1] Matthew, Mark, Luke, [and John] hmmm. Nietzsche also said that
>John was the one who perverted Christianity... I'm looking for
>reasons... what exactly did John do? Mabye I'll go read his version and
>see the differences...

The Jesus of MM&L is concerned with public service. He heals the sick and
the lame, he preaches about tolerence, he tells people what he thinks is

The Jesus of John goes around telling people to "follow him," but never
explains how; acts like a king (MM&L's Jesus does not). Tells people that
the sick and the lame were made so, just so the Christ could prove his power.

-- John


[1] Spong, John Shelby. _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_. 1992.

[2] This is not entirely fair to Paul. Paul is so often contradictory that
some people suggest that the writings of Paul are not all by Paul.
John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689
"See my loafers? Former gophers!"
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years