Why are there so few records of Jesus?

One of the arguments that atheists use is that Jesus may not have existed, and no one can really prove otherwise. Obviously because Jesus didn’t exist, then this means that the Christian religion itself is based on an obvious lie. Although this is a specious argument, the religion isn’t dependent on Jesus after all but what lies in the books making the idea of a messiah on Earth superfluous, it is something that needs to be addressed. There are several reasons for this historical omission, and atheists tend to forget about them, even if those reasons back their case.

The biggest problem is that Jerusalem was considered the armpit of the Roman Empire. Although you have various Christian historians listing Jerusalem as the center of learning, the sad reality is that Jerusalem at the time of the Roman occupation was a hive of rebellion; the forests all around Israel were being cut down in order to provide wood for crucifixes, and Jesus himself no doubt made money from building crucifixes. It would be considered the same as any strange foreign area today; you expect weird stories from there and, while you note them, you tend to ignore the stories over the long haul.

There is also how histories were written at the time. Although there were annual reports done, most of the histories were written well after the fact. The idea was that if you write the history too soon after it happened, the passions of those involved would interfere with the proper writing of the history, making it less than objective. The solution to this was to simply wait a generation or two to insure that the passions had died and that the event was of actual historical interest. This is why none of the gospels were written until well into the first and second centuries.

There was yet another complication: Jesus was not the only messiah at the time. Keep in mind that Pontius Pilate was not there on vacation; he was there to get and then keep the Israelites in line. As such, there were numerous messiahs in town preaching that the Roman occupation would soon be over, and that God would soon take His promised people home. As such, if someone was preaching a messianic message, he would melt into the crowd.

So, summing up: From a historian’s perspective, Jesus was just another messiah living in the armpit of the Empire, and the event was not important to any of the historians living in Rome at the time. By the time the records were written, it would have mattered only to the growing cult of Christianity. As such, the historical mentions of it are limited to footnotes and what we would blind items today. You can find records of Jesus here and there, but they are practically hidden away. Ergo, the likelihood of finding those mentions is pretty miraculous in and of itself.

Sucks to be the New Pope

It has to suck to Pope Francis I. The new pontiff is coming into a major mess, and it doesn’t look good. His predecessor retired, something that almost no pope has done, and he has to deal with an organization more applicable in many ways to a world that no longer exists. He has to bring the Catholic Church into the modern world and it’s not going to be easy.

He’s already had to deal with a number of rumors and innuendoes. Most notably was a Facebook meme that made it seem as if he attacked women looking for office, and an article made it look as if he had caused two men to be kidnapped. The meme was easily dealt with, as no one could find a source for the quote, and it turned out the two men were kidnapped after being let go by the Church. His tenure already promises to be interesting, as he has to deal with a number of problems that few popes have had to deal with, as the Church’s attitudes need to be brought into the present, specifically the apparent plague of pedophilia, the use of condoms, and the role of women and homosexuals in the Catholic Church. The question is whether or not he is equipped for the challenge.

There is a lot of hope with this new pope. He is known for his role in social issues; he has a reputation for driving himself, and has a preference for living as simply as possible. The two incidents uncovered that he has no problem with women leaders, and even has a few as heroes. When the two men were kidnapped, Francis I helped secure their release, as well as helped thousands of dissidents escape. He has condoned the use of condoms for the purposes of disease prevention, something that is already light years ahead of other pontiffs. So there is a certain amount of hope.

This is not to say that the road will be smooth. The pedophile problem will always be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, even though there is little that can ultimately be done about it. The Church is an unfortunately static entity, and the numbers of disaffected Catholics due to the inability of the Church to adapt to modern life is another issue. Combined with the current status of women and homosexuals in the Church, and Francis I has a lot of problems he has to deal with in order to put the Church on an even footing. With his age and that the Church is known for reversing the rulings of prior popes, it is doubtful that he will be able to make the reforms needed or that they will stick.

However, hope once stirred is hard to still. There is a rising voice within the laity that things need to change, and that now has to be the moment. The Prophecy of the Popes is a source of worry, as it prophesies that Pope Francis I may be the last pope. There are two ways of interpreting it, of course, assuming a third option, one that allows for a number of popes before it comes true, doesn’t come into play: The Church will fall, heralding The Apocalypse, and that The Church will change so much that it will no longer as we know it now. In short, the new pope has to make a lot of changes and do so quickly, and he’s facing the possibility that his choices may have apocalyptic consequences.

No problem, as long as he walks with God and stays on the side of the angels. It should make for an interesting next couple of years…

Priests and Not Doing the Job

[This is not meant as apologist and should not be taken as such. I acknowledge that there is a problem, but n order to solve the problem, or at least find a better solution, it helps to know exactly what the problem is.]

The problem with pedophilia and the Catholic is a complicated one. The first part of the problem is that the problem itself is not one that can be easily solved. Priests are still human, and as such are subject to the same failings as the rest of us. However, because of the position of authority and trust that priests are put in, the effects of those failings are amplified. The good news is that priests are less likely to molest children tan the general population (4% versus 5%), but it is still going to happen. We can only hope to diminish the possibility of it happening.

The second part is that the Catholic Church is changing its perspective. Originally, there was the problem that when a pedophile priest was caught there was little the prosecutor could do. Prior to the 1980s, people simply didn’t sue as much as they do now. When it came to molestation, parents were loathe to press charges because it meant that the child would need to face his attacker, and parents were worried about compounding the trauma. In that case, the best that could be done would be to move the priest to a post where he wouldn’t deal with the public, preferably a monastery; the priest was removed from circulation and promotion. Occasionally someone would screw up and the priest was put back in circulation, usually because of some naïve belief that the person had changed or simply due to clerical error. However, for the times of which we speak, that punishment was seen as enough; because of the lack of a witness prosecution was simply not possible, and the monastery was seen as an effective punishment that also removed the priest.

In the 1980s things changed, and parents realized that facing his attacker was the most effective therapy; by facing the attacker the child could begin to heal and his attacker could face prosecution. Parents were more willing to take the priests to court. Also, they were more willing to then take the local church to civil court and press for damages. The Church, being a monolithic organization, was slow to change; the problem was originally seen as a local problem. It needs to be noted that the Catholic Church is set up more like a franchised business rather than a single structure; a single church succeeds or fails on its merits without affecting the church as a whole. As such, problems affecting a single church or a chain of churches is seen as a local problem, and not one for The Church as a whole. The molestation issue was seen as a local issue rather than as a problem affecting The Church as a whole.

Suffice to say that has finally been changing as the Catholic Church finally began realizing that this was no longer a local problem, and was seen as an international issue. Pope Benedict XVI has been telling individual churches to work with police in nailing priests, and that those hiding the priests will be punished. Although there has been resistance in the new policy, most notably in California, this is to be expected; the new policy will take some time to implement.

However, there are those who need to problem to be seen as one of overall church corruption rather than as individual crimes. They need to justify their hatred of The Church; they are on their own crusade. They want to see what they see as a blight on the face of humanity removed, either because they have been wronged or because they see a problem. However, seeking reform of the system, they seek the total destruction of the system. It makes sense as people always seek to punish those that have wronged them. However, rather than allowing The Church to catch up with the times, they would prefer to see it disappear completely. As such, they want to see The Church fail, and thus report every crime as part of a greater conspiracy, even when it isn’t.

The question is ultimately whether or not an organization should be liable for the actions of those in it, and to what degree. It’s easy to argue that an organization should be responsible for the actions of those in it, but it’s a problematic issue; at some point individuals need to take responsibility for their actions, and at the same time it needs to be noted that organizations only have limited control over their members. If an organization is willing to work with authorities to see that justice is done, that needs to be allowed for. It’s an interesting issue that needs to be dealt with, and the sooner the better. Let’s hope the new pope is ready for the work ahead.

An Atheist President

One of the fun parts about dealing with atheists is that they believe that there will never be an atheist president, at least not any time soon. The belief is that Americans in general find atheists not having the same morals as they do, and that they are amoral, whereas at least those with a Christian background have morals. The problem obviously is that atheists do have morals, and that they do feel the need to serve just as much as their religious counterparts. However, an atheist would need to overcome a different set of problems in order to become president: negative campaigning, proving their reputation, and organization.

Something that social media types are all too aware of is that atheists tend to spread the message of atheism way too much. If you have atheist friends, and they are proud of it, it seems that they post a lot of atheist propaganda. Ricky Gervais gets posted a lot, as do Dawkins and Carlin. There are also numerous posts that attack religious in general and Christianity specifically. A lot of it is easily slapped down, but there does seem to be a lot of it. It’s also gotten worse with the pope’s retirement; a major item was that Pope Benedict was retiring after a discussion about immunity. Although the item was proven false almost every time it popped it, that it kept popping up says all the wrong things about atheism.

The issue here is that almost everyone is tired of negative campaigning, and religious people are tired of dealing with attacks on the social media. That’s why this is the first problem; if atheists want to keep up the onslaught of negativity they can, but it’s not going to help build positive publicity for their case. It’s fine to say whatever you want, to start a discussion using a negative statement, but there is a problem when it borders on libel; there needs to be some form of fact-checking on the posts. It’s hardly a great plan to build a campaign for president when it doesn’t take much to see that you’ve been libeling most of your potential constituency.

Obviously the person must establish a reputation of religious tolerance, but doing so may alienate his own atheist base. Rather than being seen as someone who likes to bridge the gap between atheist and believer, but it is most likely that he will alienate one or the other side. By doing so, he may lose both sides in the election, so he needs to play a very tight game.

The other issue will be proving his or her reputation. This is going to be even harder for an atheist than someone who is a known by his church. One of the reasons that politicians maintain close ties to their church is that those close ties can establish a record of that person’s personality, especially the good deeds that the person has done. There are other ways to establish a person’s character, obviously, but few of them have as much duration as a person’s church; it is a group of people that knew the person for a long period of time, some of them even since the person was a kid. Having a military record helps, of course, as does a long volunteer record, but few things work as well as a church. Being part of a church establishes the person as salt of the earth, even if the person is rich, in a way that doing volunteer doesn’t. A military record will also help, especially if the person is a hero or by default in the combat arms.

Last but not least is the lack of a support organization. A Christian has the advantage of a church for support; nothing gets out the vote like a large organization, and that organization supports its own even if they’ve heard of the person before. An atheist candidate is going to have to build that organization almost from scratch; although atheist organizations do exist, they simply lack the organization that a church has.

In short, an atheist may need to overcome his own record, must establish that he has a positive reputation, and has to build an organization to back him during the campaign. If he can do all of that, he should be able to at least do a decent run at a campaign. So good luck and you have my prayers ;-)!