RESURRECTION INSURRECTION

Today is Bunny Day, AKA Easter Sunday.

For interested readers, the definition of Easter is here

So let's deflate our respective senses of wonder, and take a good, hard look at the Resurrection Myth.

It's a central tenet of Christianity. If you don't believe in it, you're either,

A. A pagan
B. An atheist
C. A Gnostic,
D. Supply your choice of noun here.

While resurrection myths abound in most folklore, from Osiris to Hercules, the xtian version is quite different, inasmuch as all human beings are promised a physical reunion with their spiritual bodies.

I'll give that an eight, it's got a good beat, but I can't dance to it.

In the words of the Great Agnostic:

"Does anybody believe that, who has the courage to think for himself? Here is a man, for instance, that weighs 200 pounds and gets sick and dies weighing 120; how much will he weigh in the morning of the resurrection? Here is a cannibal, who eats another man; and we know that the atoms you eat go into your body and become a part of you. After the cannibal has eaten the missionary, and appropriated his atoms to himself, he then dies, to whom will the atoms belong in the morning of the resurrection? Could the missionary maintain an action of replevin, and if so, what would the cannibal do for a body? It has been demonstrated, in so far as logic can demonstrate anything, that there is no creation and no destruction in Nature. It has been demonstrated, again and again, that the atoms in us have been in millions of other beings; have grown in the forests and in the grass, have blossomed in flowers, and been in the metals. In other words, there are atoms in each one of us that have been in millions of others; and when we die, these atoms return to the earth, again appear in grass and trees, are again eaten by animals, and again devoured by countless vegetable mouths and turned into wood; and yet this church, in the nineteenth century, in a council composed of and presided over by professors and presidents of colleges and theologians, solemnly tells us that it believes in the literal resurrection of the body. This is almost enough to make one despair of the future--almost enough to convince a man of the immortality of the absurd. They know better. There is not one so ignorant but knows better."
- Ingersoll, Orthodoxy

I for one would love to believe in life after death, become a hereafterian. But alas, all facts point elsewhere.Or, in the words of John Adams: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. "

We have accounts two millennia old. Accounts which differ, not in the matter of minutiae, such as whether the weather was inclement or not, or what variety of sandal fashion was in vogue, but varying widely in crucial, key points in each 'testimony'. The most ridiculous of which, is that fumbling, bumbling incompetent Matthew (if that was his name, in lieu of no signed original document), who made much of the fact that, in Matthew 27:50

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Which I find most...amusing. Because
A. The graves were opened and the saints resurrected at the 'death', but
B. They had to wait until the three day cycle was at an end.

"Hey guys? We're a, ahem, alittle ahead of schedule here. Is it okay if you all just wait a couple of more days until the Big Guy comes back? You can? Cool!"

And who were these fellows? These others that arose from the dead? Only one apostle mentions this, of the three. No names, no witnesses, obviously an apocryphal story which should be discarded.

And no outside corroboration whatsoever. This is all OVER the place in the beloved 'gospels'. In this instance, it's not mentioned in Mark, or John, or even Luke (who was supposed to be a 'superlative' historian ).

As should all of it. The resurrection concept reeks of syncretism. Dionysius, Osiris, Hercules, Adonis, Tammuz: the list does go on, into the dim recesses of history.

The saddest part of the story is not that it was told: it's a hell of a story. The saddest part, is that so many accept it as truth, fight for it tooth and nail, to the detriment of their fellow man.

An end to fairy tales that guide our lives, I say. These belong to the venue of children. Not adults. We should put these childish things away.

Otherwise, it's the blind leading the blind: both fall into the ditch.

See, the book of fables has the occasional use, after all.

Let the dead sleep. Let not their ghostly hands manipulate us across the centuries, let not their words and deeds influence the minutiae of our lives. There is no hereafter: there is no conscious immortality. It is a dream only, a lovely one, but one that needs fade with the light of day, the light of reason, the light of life.