Myopia: (n) a lack of foresight or discernment: a narrow view of something
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Just making crap up
I'm not sure how to describe the above pic, which I have seen in any number of places about the net, usually surrounded by smarmy, fauxphisticated, historically-ignorant atheists. It's actually part of a larger pic which includes similar frames for Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus, and finishes with a pic of Y U No Guy asking Christians why they can't be original. I have to ask instead why atheists can't be accurate.
Jesus, of course, is a well-known figure, so well-known that lots of people actually think he was born on December 25th. While the date is traditional, it's neither accurate nor inaccurate - the Bible simply does not say when he was born*. But we'll take the rest as read: Jesus was born of a virgin, had a star in the East, had 12 disciples, performed miracles. He was crucified, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures.
But what of Krishna? If what this graphic says is true, it might be an example of what CS Lewis called "good dreams" that God sent humanity to point to the Savior. It could be a counterfeit sent by Satan to confuse, like dinosaur bones buried in the crust of ancient literature. It could be damning proof that Christianity was simply a mystery religion that stole its doctrines from other mystery religions, like Mormonism stole its temple rites from Freemasonry. It could be something else altogether. That's what we're here to find out, kids.
So, did Krishna also rise again in fulfillment of the scriptures? Not so much. This might sound odd, but this list of Krishna facts don't look much like Krishna at all. According to the Devi Bhagavatam (4/1), Krishna was born as the sixth son of an imprisoned couple, and his father was a prince** rather than a carpenter. And if mom has had six kids, the Virgin argument would be harder to pull off than this one, I suspect. According to the hyper-accurate Wikipedia***, Krishna was born July 18, 3228bc rather than Christmas, 900bc. He was not crucified, but killed by a hunter's arrow while he was meditating in a forest. He was not resurrected, but rather his soul ascended to Heaven while his body was cremated by Ajuna, a warrior hero friend who found it. He performed the miracle of lifting Govardhana Hill and holding it over the heads of a bunch of villagers to protect them from rain****. And just like Jesus, he had 16,108 wives.
The scholarship, such as it is, seems to be a summary of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, a nineteenth century study so laughably inept that even the folks at Infidels.org had the good taste to disclaim it. But it does make you wonder why this sort of demonstrably false drivel swirls around the toilet bowl of human consciousness that is the internet, yet never goes down. Could it be that some people simply pass it on as fact because they want it to be true?
Nah, that would be irrational. And if there's one thing we know about people who so desperately want Christianity to be false, it's that they are rational.
* If my birthday was in December, I'd move his to July 18 to avoid those disappointing "combination" birthday/Christmas presents.
** He was "the pious and illustrious Vasudeva... the incarnation of the God Hari Himself," and married to the sister of King Herod. *** Which is at least easier to read than the Devi Bhagavatam, I'll give it that. **** Mark 11:23, FTW.