Against the European Man's Hold on Truth

I love stupid people. I love the way they like to think they are the center of the universe. Stupid is is stupid does (or stupid believes).

I love the way people define 'Christianity.' All they do is take what was ALLOWED to spread through European controlled lands for centuries and then they say, 'that's the religion of Jesus' or the 'religious tradition founded by the gospel writer(s).' No wait a minute. That last answer is to smart for even New Testament scholars.

What the hell is the matter with people? Christianity was white-washed. Is this even controversial or are people too stupid to see it because - well, they are Europeans and they like things white-washed.

How do they explain that the European man's religion only remained in the Middle East as long as Europeans were holding up swords to the necks of the Semitic man?

I forgot, Islam is always explained away as 'the religion of the sword.' They have this image of poor helpless 'victims' of the advancing 'Arabian horde' being 'forced' to accept this false religion.

Yet they never do this in reverse. They never think - gee, these Romans and Byzantines ruled the world for centuries, the same centuries when Christianity was getting established. Is it possible that maybe it was us European people who held a sword (or various torture implements to the converts to a wholly Semitic religious system which believed in the coming of someone like Mohammed?

No, that's impossible.

Why so?

Well ... because God chose the Gentiles.

Yes, but by 'Gentiles' you really mean 'the Europeans' because your stupid book, the Acts of the Apostles has all the Jewish missionaries suddenly making a bee line for Greece and Rome.

So what's your point?

You're not really saying that God 'chose the Gentiles' you're saying that he gave up on the Jews and picked Europeans people.

Oh I would never say that. I am not a racist. I think God loves all people.

Yes, but the system you support was used by European and American missionaries as part of a world view that 'European people' were better than everyone else and could bring 'civilization' to the rest of the savages who inhabited the planet.

Yes, but we don't think like that any longer.

It doesn't matter. The problem in the end is that there is no reason to suppose that Europeans were ever better authorities on the meaning and the message of earliest Christianity. The Roman Church undoubtedly beat out all its competitors because it was near the seat of worldly power.

So what are you saying?

Well, how could a faith centered in Alexandria - the home of one of the most important Jewish communities anywhere - possibly compete against a false Church based in Rome that was in bed with the wicked Emperors who ruled from the time of Commodus?

Are you saying that the Catholic Church is evil?

No, I am just saying that if you want the truth about Christianity why go to European people? They have an obvious agenda which is trying to get around the fact that they have no authority on anything. The gospel wasn't written by one of their kind. It undoubtedly wasn't written in their language. It certainly was directed to their pale faces. In short it wasn't by, about or for them.

But that sounds racist.

Well, maybe that's the point. Maybe Christianity was originally a Semitic liberation theology that was effectively neutralized by the addition of a series of 'white lies.' You just never know.

Yes, but now your speculating ...

No, I am trying to do what western scholars refuse to do. That is to establish a CONTEXT for the development of Islam. Most of them won't say it of course but they see Mohammed and his tradition as either a threat or a fraud. They can't even consider that he might have come from a tradition or at least - that Semitic Christianity based on a single, gospel and seemingly yearning eternally for a liberator and a restorer figure had any sort of legitimacy or historical roots.

It's always unfortunate to have biased witnesses judge a contest ...