This is what I wrote on my national swedish/society exams essay (well, poorly translated):


Let's say you are a great philosopher. You have for a very long time turned life upside down and come up with the perfect plan for mankind to live in perfect hamrony and peace. You are now eager to spread the plan to the masses for the people to acknowledge it and conform to it.

You start mindstorming; How? How do you convince a whole world of a plan concerning their whole lifespan? You come to realize some things...:

Why isn't there already a plan? Or is there? Most people do conform to a certain plan or ideal, or atleast to some point. But there is still pain, suffering and hate in the world, so every previous plan must've failed. Maybe not in its ideal, but to reach the people and make the change. Different politic ideologies do want the best for mankind, in their point of view.

The main thing you have to analyze with other ideals and "plans" is how they turned peoples minds to conform and acknowledge. What do people listen to? You've noticed that people have a tendency to feel great comfort in a group who trust one "bigger" thing, something holding the plan, not the plan itself. You see how people trust every word in a book with a beautiful cover and great reputation. You see people trust the great leader with great charisma and charm, the speaker. People wants to be in the crowd and express their compassion. The people feel comfort when they know it'll be allright.

But why does the leaders and doctrines loose their followers? Do the people get bored? Don't they get what they we're promised? How will you keep your followers when attained? You realize that your plan cannot be questioned. You know it sounds fascist, but you also know that this is The Plan, the one that WILL bring the people peace and harmony if just lived after. So, how do you make the plan completely unquestionable? You could have to make the person who question it look real bad, and feel really bad about it. You would have to create an emotional compassion for the plan and you from the people.
You now know the one way to make it unquestionable, what you will tell the people. You will give them a reality that cannot be proved wrong, nor right. The compassion will ensure that they go the plans way. By giving them an unquestionable reality, the people will know that the reality given is correct, and with that, so is the plan.

But the people have a tendency to demand proof. Now how do you give them proof of something you know isn't "true" but will bring them happiness? How do you define proof anyways? Maybe it's not as concrete as it is known to be, since there have been endless disputes over proofs. So, will a nonpartial, or even counterpartial person, who confirm the reality of the plan be held as proof? .....

Another thing people have a tendency to demand is something in return. They know that they "could" live a good life and be good people, so why would they conform to this plan among so many others? You will need a carrot. The greatest gifts of all, something they cannot possibly neglect. Just one catch; you can't give them anything more than happiness, peace and harmony. But you've already established that it cannot be questionable.. You now know what to promise the people, and it cannot possibly be proven wrong. The people will think that they're getting something else than what the plan is all about, but will feel good with not knowing.


At this point, you have the peoples respect and acknowledgement. And you feel really great. But you know that you, the people's leader, won't live forever. And if you die, the people could neglect the plan since they nolonger have the "Leader" character in addition to the doctrine. You come to realize what many people have before; the only way to become immortal is to die when the eyes of the world is upon you. You then die dramatically, but the people still have their leader character in their lives in some way.

.......

Most of you probably know who i'm talking about, but to mess you who might not get it, I wont write the name.

Now to the theory. It basically makes a certain religion look really good in the eyes of the rationalist. Though it failed greatly, whatever the facts and reality, with it's motives and goals since man is too intelligent yet all too stupid to follow it. The question is, what did/does He want if He exists? In the theory, He wants the best for mankind. By The Book, He did want the best for mankind in his point of view as well, but don't accentuate it much. If the reality as it is discribed is true, is there anyone who can say honestly that you would rather conform to whatever the reality, rather than doing the best to ensure a good life for you and the people around you?

I can say for sure that I wouldn't care what my "people" believed or said, as long as they lived a good life and were nice to eachother.

This might be a translational problem but just what are you trying to say or are you just questioning the base situation?

This might be a translational problem but just what are you trying to say or are you just questioning the base situation?

Im speaking of Jesus

Im speaking of Jesus

I know.
What I don't know, is just what it is you are trying to say?
I mean, what is the point of that text?

if you are trying to disect Christianity and it's origins in a rational way then I say you've failed and have only gone as far as justifying its origins instead.
Similar but not quite the same.
That's not to mention that your reasonings don't follow.

From the looks of it, part of the plan was to eventually die.
i.e him dying wasn't the result of the brainstorming of how to spread the plan as you call it.
So your basic premise is wrong to begin with.
without the dying part, the plan simply becomes "be good to each other" (which isn't anything new really - which really does begin to question the need for a religion)
it is the dying part that allows the following ressurection; the key element of christianity.

the only rationalist part I can see is also a very basically simple idea; that it is sometimes good to lie if it means better for all in the long term.
Bear in mind though that this doesn't mean the religion is good/bad because of it.

I know.
What I don't know, is just what it is you are trying to say?
I mean, what is the point of that text?

Nothing special really, just a brain tickler or something, and to view the possiblity that Jesus might've lied to ensure the prosperity of mankind by printing a new thing for "sheep" behaving people to argue about.

Also, it opens some questions to believers (that probably have asked before yes), like 'For who or what are you believing?'.

if you are trying to disect Christianity and it's origins in a rational way then I say you've failed and have only gone as far as justifying its origins instead.
Similar but not quite the same.
That's not to mention that your reasonings don't follow.

I guess here are some translation problems. Not just slight errors, I have problem getting my point out in general. And I can't blaim you if you think that sound hard to believe.

I'm not an Atheist, so my reasons for "disecting" christianity are not for taking the mystic out of it. Actually, I was trying to get an A on my essay.

From the looks of it, part of the plan was to eventually die.
i.e him dying wasn't the result of the brainstorming of how to spread the plan as you call it.
So your basic premise is wrong to begin with.
without the dying part, the plan simply becomes "be good to each other" (which isn't anything new really - which really does begin to question the need for a religion)
it is the dying part that allows the following ressurection; the key element of christianity.

What do you mean my premise is wrong? I never stated how he would view death, if thats what you mean.

I wrote it as it was the best way he could think of to convince the people enough to make them "be good", not teach them to be good.

the only rationalist part I can see is also a very basically simple idea; that it is sometimes good to lie if it means better for all in the long term.
Bear in mind though that this doesn't mean the religion is good/bad because of it.

The title for the essay we were supposed to write was "Truth or lie?" Subtext; When is it ok to lie and when not?. So I guess I'll take that as some sort of a compliment, since I actually DID get my point out.

I never see things as good/bad by default, rather as a rule of which action to take according to a specific belief/goal.


Anyways, I guess this came out really bad in general because of my way of writing/translating. My apoligizes.