Christianity has had such a tremendous impact on Western history that without it, the modern era would be unrecognizable. America and the nations of Europe may never have formed, being replaced instead by different nations and cultures. America has a lot of problems, many of them thanks to Christianity, but it's still my home, and using time travel as irresponsibly as that would be like using a nuclear weapon to kill the cockroaches in your house.
Furthermore, I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler, either. As a result of that madman's useless pogroms, boatloads of those smart Jews came over to work for us. Albert Einstein's the most famous example, but I'm sure there are more. I also hear that WWII was very good for the U.S. economy, and if that's the case, deleting that whole event from history might put us in worse economic standing than we are now.
i suppose we could come up with a strict set of rules governing the practice, like Asimov did with robotics. Maybe we could send probes back through time that would let us see and hear the past as it happened, perhaps through some kind of 3-Dimensional interface that let us freely wander the time period... but, i guess, that could also lead to some kind of unforeseen Heisenbergian observational contamination tho.
It must sound like foolishness to you but killing Santa Clause would be easy i'd just have to visit Asia minor at some point between March 16, 270 & December 6, 346 and put a bullet in his head. I know that Atheist don't believe in Santa Clause but historians sure do.
Math and logic are wonderful resources to employ when trying to determine outcomes; but i do agree there are probably a few other things that i would use my Chronoship for.
I think it's safe to say, most of the world, atheist or not, doesn't believe in Santa Claus if we're talking about a fat bearded elf who flies around the world delivering toys for good children and lumps of coal for bad ones.
It's one thing to say there was some dude named Nicolas punching blasphemous bishops earning the title of a saint, but it's another thing to say you believe he became a flying magical fat man originating from Finnish fairy tales.
If you look into the history books, Saint Nicholas was was venerated for having saved some boys from execution, liking children and punching bishops who need to study up on their Bible. That I can believe. Believing he's drives a sleigh pulled by reindeers is another thing.
Who believes that he drives a sleigh pulled by reindeer though? i think i was about 3 when my parents told me that even though other people didn't believe in Santa Clause that we didn't, it wasn't until i was older and decided to do my own research that i discovered that there actually was a real Santa and the whole "him not existing" mythology was just another manifestation of delusion perpetuated by the babylonian church.
Exactly. No one believes that crap. It's just fun stuff.
To believe that there was a) A dude named Saint Nick who was said to give gifts to local children so they named a holiday after him in the olden days. b) A Finnish fairy story of a magical fairy who give presents to good children and pranks the bad children involving reindeers (which are owned by the Lapland people who live there). c) Somewhere down the line someone thought it was a great story to combine the two so there wouldn't be a religious issue with believing in fairies. There are a lot of cultures that turned their local fairies and gods into saints so they could keep celebrating those holidays without being blasphemous to other Christians. And Christmas is a pretty popular holiday so it's not weird it's a widely told fairy tale.
So what I'm saying is not believing in Santa is not in the atheist manual, it's in the I fucking grew up manual. I mean I'm really surprised that the OP just said to me "I know atheists don't believe in Santa." What? Does that mean the OP believe in Santa?
Also as an atheist it doesn't mean I don't believe in Jesus, Buddha, or any other historical figure, I just don't believe they were anything more than a human who thought about things.
That's a dumb idea, the fact he was martyred is what started his cult to begin with. A time traveler wanting to undo the effects of Christianity and Islam in this world would have to expose Jesus as a Fraud, not kill him.
i think that by running these programs i'm better equipped to isolate flaws in what i perceive to be the impossible; the reality is 'nothing is impossible' but some of the probable has already occurred. By isolating the necessity of early chronological occurrences i'm able to better decide which way the arc of the future must point, which is, i suppose, something that i do have the power to change.
Mercury-CroweFeatured By OwnerJan 5, 2013Professional Artisan Crafter
First off, there is no way you can actually 'change' something time traveling. It already happened. What we see NOW is the result of you going back.
Say you want to kill Hitler. You could find the person who is Hitler, kill him, whatever- and a man called Adolph Hitler who is the person we see in the photos and video will come to power and it will happen anyway. You can't change something and get a new result because that was part of the original result.
So, if you went back to kill Jesus the best you could do is help to create the whole myth around him. Maybe you'd realize one of the figures in the book is talking about you or something.
BUT assuming Jesus really was the son of God, and assuming you COULD change things, wouldn't that just mean God would pick some other girl to knock up and try it all again?
We're trying to self-define Christianity by taking out what appears to be the crux of the entire religion(which of course creates another paradox), but i don't actually feel that it's the sacrifice that was supposed to define their religion... i mean if we were for the sake of all of these hypotheticals take Jesus at his word... rather it would be the infinite mercy of their God. If Christianity were true then God would have to "provide another sacrifice" so to speak, but i think the second time around the price might be higher than a simple death by crucifixion.
I was talking about the mythos being true from our timeline, as it stands now, from the perspective of someone who is looking at the possibility of going back in time and changing it. I mean, you're correct that in the changed timeline Christianity wouldn't exist if there were no Christ. I also wasn't implying that the sacrifice defines the religion. I guess my interest in this has less to do with religion and more to do with the ethics and consequences of time travel.
Do you think the price would have to be higher if Jesus was rescued by a time-traveling human? It kind of makes sense that the price would have to be higher if Jesus was made to never have existed by a time traveling human, but I don't know about the former case.
Of course i'm not 100% on any of this, but the sacrifice does seem to be necessary it just seems like an infinite God would have a few contingency plans set in place.
i think i have this Tales from the Cryptesque fictionalization of the whole thing in my head, at this moment, about the time traveler somehow ending up dying instead of the Jesus he came to save and perpetuating the whole thing again. The traveler could also go back in time and use future medicine to bring Jesus back to life and then take him back to the future after allowing a bunch of people to see him alive, thus dispelling the belief that he died at all.
I feel like I'd be repeating myself if I just said, y'know, the whole mythos being true, in-a-literal-as-opposed-to-poetically-metaphorical-way. If it's true and someone goes back and saves Jesus from execution they might effectively be dooming humanity since Jesus's sacrifice is what allowed for the salvation of humanity. Not that it might not still be worth doing if you were capable of time-travel.
The Law of God demand, the penalty of sins is death! Wherefore, Christ has to die on the cross for his people, that He has plan to become saved and paid the full penalty required by the Law of God. In another words, Christ did not die for everyone, He only died to those He has plan to saved, before the foundation of this world. Therefore, the penalty was death (Romans 6:23). . . . . . .
The perfect law of God, which was written by God Himself, decrees that because mankind was created in the image of God, every individual must pay the penalty demanded by God's law for their sins. Therefore, even though they were elected by God and given to Christ to become His eternal possession, Christ could not have them unless the penalty for their sin was paid in full. God's law decrees that the penalty for sin is death, so effectively, those who were chosen and given to Christ would never be able to come into Christ’s possession because they could never pay the penalty. That, brings us to another dramatic action that God took on behalf of all those who become saved. . . . . . .
"Christ was the sins bearer." When God viewed the universe, which He planned to create at the beginning of time, He saw that there was no one He could utilize to bear the wrath of God on behalf of the elect, those chosen by God who were given to Christ as His eternal possession. This is taught in Isaiah 63:5 and Ezekiel 22:30. However, God's perfect law decreed that the penalty of death must be paid before any individual could be allowed to enter into God's holy Heaven. Every aspect of God's perfect law had to be satisfied perfectly.