The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> H.G. Wells.....historian?

H.G. Wells.....historian?
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, February 17 2009, 20:42:56 (CET)
from *** - *** Non-Profit Organizations - Linux - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

HG Wells......historian?

Never would have imagined that a writer of science fiction, albeit with moral and social underpinnings, would also be a serious historian and write the stuff so well and with such an even and fair temper.....except in his assessment of Napoleon...which can be forgiven.

Wells had great affection and respect for Jesus but no love for the Church which abused his name and teachings...a position shared by Gandhi as well as Islam.

He points out also that Genesis and Adam and Eve were not of Jewish origin but Babylonian and possibly even older...back to the Sumerians...and that the Jews picked this all up during their very heady and rewarding stay in Babylon. This is, of course, true...but what’s interesting is how the message of Jesus was perverted by Paul into serving the ancient myth rather than the future, which is what Jesus was aiming at. But he tells it best...

“It is a fact in history that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth had something in it profoundly new and creative; he preached a new Kingdom of Heaven in the hearts and in the world of men. There was nothing in his teaching, so far as we can judge it at this great distance of time, to clash or interfere with any discovery or expansion of the history of the world and mankind. But it is equally a fact in history that St Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for, as you may prefer to think, the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus, by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations, and that this Pauline teaching DID (emphasis in the original, mine) involve very definite beliefs about the history of the world and man.”

In other words Jesus required a new outlook that was still compatible with human nature and a normal and even healthier world view...but it required a re-wiring of old ideas, for the betterment of everybody. But Paul had a completely different take on the matter...he made it so that people could remain rat-bastards and by formulas and belief, with no real change in behavior or morals, attain salvation anyway...plus which he imposed a view of the origin of life and the Fall and the need for atonement and salvation and blood sacrifice which would seriously compromise human intellectual development aimed at bettering life in the future.

“It is not the business of the historian to controvert or explain these matters; the question of their ultimate significance depends upon the theologian; the historian’s concern is merely the fact that official Christianity throughout the world adopted St Paul’s view, so plainly expressed in his epistles and so untraceable in the Gospels, that the meaning of religion lay not in the future, but in the past, and that Jesus was not so much the teacher of wonderful new things, as a predestinate divine blood sacrifice to deep mystery and sacredness made in atonement of a particular act of historical disobedience to the Creator committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve, in response to the temptation of a serpent in the Garden of Eden. Upon that belief in the Fall as a fact, and not upon the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, upon the theories of Paul, and not the injunctions of Jesus, doctrinal Christianity built itself.”

This barbaric revision of what Jesus was all about would make religion the enemy of science and education, the real stuff, because soon enough scientists found evidence that the world was much older than the bible insisted...and if that was true, then there never was a Garden of Eden and so there never was a serpent or a Fall for which a blood sacrifice would have to atone...and hence the underpinnings of Christian doctrine would be, or could be, swept away. Nothing that Jesus taught clashed with science or what Darwin discovered...but Paul’s teachings were directly opposed to Darwin, science, common sense and, in the end, intellectual growth and integrity...this is the damage done to the modern world by what Paul did....this is what butchered the teachings of Jesus....

Gandhi said it best...”I revere your Jesus but despise your Church”. Amen.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9