Analysing the Execution of Jesus

Alternative Narratives of Christ: The Crucifixion. 

In the Famous Gospel Stories...

12 to 18 min read

Jesus of Nazareth is said to be the son of God who chose to take up his divine mission to save mankind by dying on the cross for all sins. For me this sounds ridiculous. The religiously obsessed and the literalist tend to believe it! Anyway, despite Jesus being a mesmeric persona, he is shrouded by countless years of mythological bollocks and religious symbolism, which may not be relevant to what really happened. 

People bullshit, exaggerate. They lie. Now, Critical Scholars and literalist evangelicals are still arguing on what parts of the New Testament are authentic or not. Doesn't that say something? Verily, verily I say unto thee, the prevailing belief among scholars is that they don't really know what is one hundred percent historical. For instance, conservative scholar Craig L. Blomberg said, 'Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.' According to Bart Ehrman, ancient gospel writers chose anonymity to keep Jesus as the focus of their narratives, and I sort of agree, but would like to add that every community would have established their own verbal recollections of the Jesus years. 

The Mystery of Gospel Authorship

Gospels were all written at different times. John is attributed to an unnamed witness and is dated around 80-100 CE. Mark is considered the oldest, expert roughly guess it was written between 65-75 CE, while Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled around 80-100 CE. E.P. Sanders points out that early followers of Jesus owned fragments of scripture that were updated over time. After the crucifixion, the apostles didn’t produce any grand biographical literature like Harry's attempt with 'Spare' because the followers were illiterate. It's factual.

The Evolution of Christian Doctrine

The New Testament has been interpreted countless times, which has spawned numerous denominations. Calvinists, for example, believe in predestination, while Catholics emphasize faith and baptism. Unitarians, like me don't all view Jesus as the literal and only Son of God. Humanity has had its fair share of Christology, from the Viking chieftain Jesus in the poem called the Heliand, to the blue eyed right-wing American bible-belt Jesus. Theissen and Merz (1996) suggest aspects of the crucifixion were written much later, and others suspect the resurrection historically differs to how we might imagine it, here. I am pretty biased.

Historical Accuracy

Most NT text is in Old Greek, a very difficult language to master. Dr. John Dominic Crossan noted inconsistencies with Paul's letters. As well as this, the decision to include text into Christian communities led to variations in early manuscripts. For instance, Papyrus 75 (200 AD) miss passages in the later Codex Sinaiticus (300 AD). This might suggest modern additions are not true representations of how shit went down. 

Contradictions and Theological Issues

Seems I'm not alone, Carrier (2011) also cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the crucifixion narratives, saying the phenomena are absent from contemporary Roman and Jewish accounts of crucifixions, which, he added, raises doubt on the entire events write-up! But, I'm biased. 

The Bible contains notable contradictions. Genesis 32:30 suggests seeing God face-to-face, while John 1:18 claims no one has seen God. These silly pedantic details simply highlight the conflict between historical fact and developing Christian theology. Johannine literature contains Greek terminology and ideas, see the Jesus the Philosopher blog. This Hellenic Jewish far cry from the Elite Jewish Orthodoxy of historical Jerusalem! 

The Harsh Reality of History 

If you look into Rome through a historical lens, a perspective informed by sources like Britannica, John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman, we see Jewish protesters did not grind down Pontius Pilate. This is important! In fact, just as much as Rome itself, this old knight of the Samnites was an oppressor, which both historical and religious sources equally illustrate.

Stick with me here, I'm going somewhere! Pilate's Jewish subjects hated him. A total bastard to say the least. He over taxed them, and showed little if any respect for their culture and laws, as well as that, he provoked riots by displaying images of the emperor across their country. It was not uncommon for him to crucify people without a trial. In fact, this man stood trial himself in Rome for cruelty! Think about that! A complete and utter sociopath who enjoyed hurting people. 

Britannica describes Pilate as eventually removing the offending images, but only after he had threatened disgruntled Jewish citizens with death after they refused to halt their protests; they showed bravery, a quality he found admirable. Be that as it is, Rome never kept Kosher rules, nor adhered to the sabbath. Rome did not respect the native laws of Briton either when it violated Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni's two daughter's. Neither did it bend the knee to Israel when it built its own pagan monument inside their Jewish Temple! These things are significantly more offensive than leaving a treacherous sect leader to desecrate on a cross! That's why I say, I do not believe the crucifixion narrative is correct. 

    "The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not simply a neutral recording of what Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers shaped and interpreted Jesus' message in light of their own theological agendas..."

                                        Bart Ehrman 

A Less Known Jesus Story

Let’s get with it. Jesus would most likely have been crucified outside the temple, given the site's foul smell, and horror. It would have been festering with flies and the process of squirming decay. It might not have been easy to make-out the facial features from high up beyond inside the city walls, which realistically, lessened the unsightliness of recognising the dying. Then again, we mustn't forget that crucifixion predated Rome, it is very ancient and goes back to Assyria. Jewish celebrants arriving for the passover would have seen Jesus on his cross as just another of the crucified; he would not have been anything special or out of the blue! This was sexing up the text. 

In the gospels, we see sentiment against wealth. Jesus is described as telling potential followers to give all their money to the poor and to follow him if they want salvation. Well, er, Joseph of Arimathea, on the other hand, was a 'wealthy follower,' so, it brgs the question why was he allowed to 'follow'? Was it because he paid for Jesus' tomb? The story never explains that contradiction, it just leads on to resurrection theology. Going on historical norms, Rome would have made an example of the Jewish King by leaving his body is situ for anyone entering the city to see. Romans would have left Jesus much longer than six hours on the cross. 

A Rare Jesus Story... 

The New Testament stories are theological developments from real historical events. The contradiction and alteration of biblical text still always raise a question, but here is one of mine:

 

Could Pilate Have Historically Ordered The Jewish Authority To Punish Jesus?

This theory is not popular among most scholars or religious people who mostly support the Roman crucifixion. What is compelling is how the bible doesn't show Jesus having any beef at all with Rome! In all truth, experts say Rome had a practice of leaving complex domestic disputes such as cultural and religious law to the natives, who, in that case, were the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. According to this religious council, Jesus called himself 'King of the Jews' a messianic blasphemy from a prophetic perspective. I featured the Pantera tradition in my 'was Jesus a cult leader?' blog, here. Tabor (2006) questions the reliability of the crucifixion in the gospels. 

People Were So Easily Upset!

Against the prevailing view of most scholars, E.P. Sanders discovered the diverse beliefs of Second Temple Judaism, including legalistic and covenantal elements. He shed new light on Paul’s communication about grace holding much broader Jewish context, he was not brand new or separate from it. The Pantera tradition, always in question, is seen as a mere polemic claiming Jesus was stoned to death on the eve of the passover, and that he was hung on a tree. 

Undeniably, this was still an ancient Jewish punishment for blasphemy, his actual charge! Why couldn't it have happened? Bart Ehrman has blogged about this alongside James Tabor! To hang, was a euphemism for Roman crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a valid Jewish post mortem exhibition on 'the cursed tree,' arbori suspendere, which encompassed and summised the entire punishment process—it dishonoured the criminal. Killed and then exhibited. Like Roman crucifixion, it was done outside the city walls. Most importantly, always before dark. Leaving the dead outside throughout the night offended their God, and they deemed it to be unlawful. 

Stoning was vindicta publica, the general public would execute the unfortunate accuse. Amongst other things, Jesus was called sorcerer, and accused of leading the people astray and religious men insisted he was aligned with the devil. After he was stoned for blasphemy, he was hung up for all to see! It aligns perfectly with historical practices. 

'... the wise king of the Jews – they killed him and did not take thought. But God took thought for them, and their land was desolated because of them'.

              Mara Bar Serapion 1st century Pagan

If Pilate could not find a crime against Rome and washed his hands of the Jesus case, he must have tasked the Sanhedrin with executing him. It follows the judicial path. It follows perfectly if we consider the speedy retreival and entombment of the body in the biblical accounts. If we acknowledge theological retrojection exists around the trial and with the mafe up Barabas character, a much valid historical story emerges, supporting experts like E.P. Sanders and Theissen. 

Around 150 CE, in his first apology to the Roman Emperor Pius, Justyn Martyr wrote that Jews accused Christians of atheism and impiety. They also insinuated Jesus himself of being the first born of Satan and a deceiver (Dodds, and Reith, 2023). Those sentiments, as well as what we see in the New Testament align with Talmudic criticisms of Jesus. 

Saint Asaph Cathedral Skeleton

It says in deuteronomy 21:22–23: A man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God. 

Paul shaped Christian theology by referring to this law in Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. 

This is why I doubt the crucifixion narrative. You should too. 

 

References

Blomberg, Craig L. "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." IVP Academic, 2007.

Codex Sinaiticus. British Library, 300 AD

Editors of Encyclopedia Briticannica. "Pontius Pilate" Britannica 1st Jun 2024

Ehrman, Bart D. "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee." HarperOne, 2014.

Dodds, M, and Reith, G "First And Second Apologies of Justyn Martyr" Dalcassian, 2023.

Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus." Penguin Books, 1993.

Crossan, John Dominic. Lecture on "Paul and the Creation of Christian Theology."

Papyrus 75. Bodmer Library, 200 AD. 

Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. HarperCollins. 

Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. (1996). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press.

Historical Analysis: Did Jesus Decompose on the Cross?

Alternative Narratives Of Christ: How Can We Really Know The History?  

Did Jesus decompose on his cross? -Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? 

Did Jesus decompose on his cross? -Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? 

Was this a historical possibility? 

7 to 10 min read

The traditional Christian story of the crucifixion is deeply ingrained in our Western consciousness. Crucifixes hang from gold chains, beautify our skin and stand central on t-shirts. However, to be honest, I love to offer an alternative theory showcasing a historical, human Jesus, because these accounts mostly serve theological, and not historical purposes! We know Roman aristocracy considered early Christian's to be anti-state criminals. We can reasonably hypothesise, that if Jesus was crucified by Pilate for somehow committing crimes against Rome, he would have decomposed on his cross on display to dissuade others. That was the Roman way. 

Understanding Crucifixion in the Roman World

Crucifixion in the Roman world was a punishment reserved for those perceived as the lowest of society, and also, those who posed a threat to the social order, namely, Rome itself. After the Spartacus rebellion, for example, Crassus crucified 6000 slaves along the Appian Way to make a point (Appian, Civil Wars). The bodies were often left hanging for extended periods, emphasizing the dire consequences of being enemies of Rome. Exceptions to this practice, such as removal for burial, were rare and dependent on factors like family petitions or the social status of the condemned.

The Early Christian Movement and Roman Criminality

The early Christian movement was perceived as a significant threat to both the social order of Roman and the religious order of both the Jewish Pharisee and the Sadducee. As such, Christians were often brought to trial on charges of "hatred towards mankind," atheism, or other accusations of disrupting societal norms (Pliny's Letters to Trajan). The public nature of punishments, including crucifixion and stoning, served to deter potential followers and maintain the status quo.

Non-Christian Sources on Jesus and the Crucifixion

Non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, provide valuable external insights into the life and death of Jesus Christ. Tacitus, for instance, confirms the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Annals, 15.44). However, the details of Jesus' burial are not mentioned in these sources, leaving room for speculation and alternative interpretations.

The Gospels as Theological, not Historical, Narratives. 

The Gospels were written to convey the theological significance of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, not to provide a historically accurate account. The accounts of Jesus' burial, therefore, should be understood in this context. For instance, the empty tomb narrative is pivotal to the resurrection story, a cornerstone of Christian faith, but lacks external corroboration. The inconsistencies across the Gospels further underscore their theological, rather than historical, motivations.

Synthesizing the Evidence: Jesus Left on the Cross?

When we synthesize the historical, non-Christian, and theological evidence, the possibility of Jesus Christ being left on the cross aligns with the consistent practice of Roman crucifixion. Its purpose of deterring the following Christians into sedition mighy have been considered a success by Roman aristocrats. 

Conclusion

I aimed to spark some thoughts about an alternative crucifixion of Jesus Christ. One that aligns more closely with Roman historical practices and non-Christian thinking. This theory underscores the importance of critical engagement with religious narratives and their historical contexts. Further research into this aspect of early Christianity and Roman history is recommended.

Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? - Did Jesus decompose on his cross? 

Did Jesus Study Greek Philosophy? The Hidden Influence on His Teachings

Alternative Narratives of Christ: A Socratic Saviour? 

Did Jesus Enjoy the Sages? 

7 to 9 min read 

Did Jesus embrace the ideas of the great Greek philosophers? To understand how Hellenistic philosophy may have influenced his teachings, we should try to appreciate these influences, let's consider the following:

Alexander the Great introduced Greek culture making Israel a cultural synchronicity, it lasted well beyond his era! Jewish communities were also living in Greece since those times! However, around 160-170 BCE in Israel, Judas Maccabeus fought against Greek assimilation, succeeding and finally establishing his family dynasty called the Hasmoneans. Unfortunately, after internal conflict, it all ended. Roman conquest happened. Pompey Magnus in 63 BCE marched in and Greek and Roman culture planted itself firmly, yet still resisted.

Greek Settlements in Galilee 

During the Jesus years, cities like Tiberias and Sepphoris existed in Galilee. Sepphoris was adorned with Greek architecture and cultural influences—the ruins still exist. Galileans were rural people with access to philosophical ideas. Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Platonism would have informed Nazareth, Capernaum and Magdala. The hellenic worldview integrated with old Rabbinic paradigm. Even figures like Paul of Tarsus and the author of John’s Gospel used specific philosophical themes into their writings. 

Sepphoris 

John 8:32: Jesus’s teaching, 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,' parallels Plato’s idea that philosophy liberates the soul (Phaedo 67d).

Matthew 6:34: Jesus's advice to not worry about tomorrow resonates with Seneca’s Stoic emphasis on focusing on the present (Letters from a Stoic).

The Anti-Jesus Sources 

The Talmudic portrayal of Jesus 500 CE stems from an older verbal 'Pantera' tradition, pre-dating Celsus 120-130 CE, who mentioned the polemics therein, in his writings against the Christians. The Talmud includes accusations of Jesus violating Jewish law, burning food on the Sabbath. Yes, it sounds petty, but there are more to these things than I can cover here. The offence of food burning, seems to imply that his prosecutors were framing him of practicing some kind of pagan ritual. In the bible the man was called a Samaritan. Orthodox Jews recognised these people as heretics—this snobbery is a common theme. 

How do you think traditional Jews saw their hellenised townsfolk, given that Greco-Roman culture was shared by their Roman oppressors?

The Galilean in the Talmud was considered to have 'led the Jews astray'. What is interesting is the polemic about him burning his food in public; is it a reference to how Greeks made their offerings to their gods? It also points at poor behaviours like consuming it openly, an attempt at discrediting any divine rumours by pinning old hellenised stereotypes onto him. 

Overlaps and Striking Similarity

Philo of Alexandria said the soul is divine and virtuous people are 'sons of God,' reflecting Stoic ideas of the divine Logos and universal reason. This sounds like Christianity. 

The universalism and inner spirituality of Jesus, was at odds with strict ritual observances that later followed. We know Jesus was not welcomed at all by religious leaders because it contrasted with covenantal law going back to Abraham and Moses. The shift aligns with philosophical values surrounding personal virtue and the universality of the divine. 

Heraclitus: “The divine is the logos, present within all things, and accessible through inner reflection.” (Fragments, 50)

Jesus: "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Plato: “He who loves the truth and is gentle in spirit is the true philosopher, akin to the divine.” (Republic, 514a)

Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Tiberias Galilee

People who lived within synchronised Jewish communities achieved new visions surrounding moral and intellectual enlightenment. They could consider one another as 'sons of God' under such paradigms. When God, Eloah or Elohim could be interchangeable with Platonic and Stoic ideals. This synthesis of divine qualities may easily have shaped the Jesus movement, driving theological discourse with the rigid Rabbinic Orthodoxy of the time. 

Conclusion... 

The Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) also introduced subtle philosophical perspectives into Jewish discourse. Torah consuming Galileans inherited generations of Zeus, Hermes and Socrates, and all that comes with it! A synthesis of the philosophical and theological took form, poles apart from the prevailing Jewish norms of the Sanhedrin in Roman occupied Jerusalem. 

The Shoelace Thing: When Intellectuals Meet The Intelligent

The Difference Between Being Clever and Being Wise

The Uni Boffin vs. Handy Man Joe... 

6 to 8 min read

Let's try and nail this one down for good, shall we? The difference between an intellectual character and an individual with practical skills, comes down to the nature and application of their respective talents. 

The family intellectual will usually indulge in a few academic ideas, anything, be it philosophical, theological, the sciences, or politics; material which is usually evidence-based or well sourced. They think. Intellectuals develop opinions and strengthen them by finding parallels from valued sources. It's an academic thing. 

Yes, critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis of information all factor into their disciplined approach to seeking truth. Why? Well, the intellect is usually associated with academic pursuits, and the intellectual might also be familiar with research and scholarly material and methodology. It fits their world view and habitual way of consuming information.

The Non-Intellectual Person Who is Good at Doing Stuff...

You also have to give credit to those people who developed proficient practical skills! They exhibit both knowledge and intelligence when performing specific jobs. They solve problems, create things or both! The adjective word 'intellectual' does not apply to these roles in the same manner. In many ways, a taskmaster or DIY expert will have different skillsets that involve both knowledge and hands on applied intelligence. 

The Self-Educated Intellectual Is Awesome! 

Now hold on! It's important to put it out there, 'intellectuals' are not exclusively the highest of the high! No, you don't have to be an eyebrow posturing YouTube debater with a posh degree! Forget pompous professors in tweed jackets! 

Have you ever argued politics online or down the pub? Tried to digest a little of your country's history or wrestled with the finer details of the mind? Bosh! That's your intellectual flame. Don't forget, you can be a cleaner or a carer and also an insightful intellectual. 

Intelligence can Pack a Punch! 

Show some appreciation for our athletes! This class of intelligence is made up of both spatial awareness, trained muscle memory, and mental strategy. Consider the athletic IQ involved in sports; they use spatial awareness, split-second decision-making under intense pressure. Athletes must adapt to the game, they also have to practice coordination, reading the game and reacting in time—high speed calculation is not easy.

Mike Tyson is an example of boxing genius! The same goes for the unsung mechanic who can fix any engine with his eyes closed! You recognise intelligence when you appreciate the skills people have. The skilled barista whipping up latte art and delighting customers under pressure! Intelligent people are not necessarily intellectual. Intellectuals are not necessarily intelligent. 

Our Intelligence Zig-Zags! 

After learning about intellectualism recently, I stopped buying into the old fallacy that intellectuals are the smartest. You see, intelligence zig-zags, and it's as diverse as the entire catalogue of Funko Pop figures! Bright sparks, intellectual or not, often struggle with some very basic tasks: Einstein was notably absent-minded and forgetful, he struggled with his shoelaces and personal relationships. 

Isaac Newton often neglected himself and could not cook. An intellectual type character might hold that superiority complex and be distant in their thoughts juggling ideas and arguments. I think that's a fair point to conclude on, I don't want to write anymore. We all have strengths and weaknesses, sorted.  

Theology Down The Park: Is Muscular The Answer?

Muscular Christianity: Saviour or Spoiler for Europe?

Unusual Gatherings at Speakers Corner

7 to 9 min read

Bob the Builder

Speaker's Corner is situated in Hyde Park, London. It has long been a place for open debate and free expression. Here we can expect to find Bob Soco, who seems like a nice man. However, some may find him distasteful when he raises his volume in his debates and uses sneaky sophism. Butting in and demanding evidence is comical before the brief moment of wordless bible page turning. It is an unusual gathering to watch. 

Bob really is a compelling character who could fit beautifully into a novel or film. Everyone should see the dialogue heat up; respect and self-restraint are called-for in that place, it can seem like it's balancing on a knife edge! Soco Studio captures all the footage of Bob as he dismantles Islamic views from his right-wing Christian paradigm. The videos are edited before being uploaded onto YouTube. 

Bob 'the Builder' Soco has praised Tommy Robinson, and stands firmly patriotic, proud of his English heritage—fair play. It is almost like a continuation of those old Atheism vs. Theism debates common during Christopher Hitchins days. Instead, Bob Soco brings Christianity vs. Islam, but also he'll oppose the liberal media and secularism. Of course, his debates are selectively uploaded for the target audience. I doubt Bob Soco would upload videos like this one below, where he is outplayed:

Response to Bob Soco's Blog here: Why Europe Needs a Muscular Christianity

Embellishing his blog, Bob Soco has an excellent image of what appears to be a cool looking modern-styled Templar Knight with a firearm. Perhaps, just for respect, we should not assume this is the actual image he had in mind when he literally refers to 'Muscular Christianity'. 

The Political Divisions

As I write this, the UK has protested and counter-protested and many criminals rioted. The hundreds of people who have peacefully expressed legitimate concerns about mass immigration, knife crime and Islamism are tarred with the same far-right brush brandished by the British government, leftists and mainstream media. Sadly, grandmothers and grandfathers, moderates and neutrals have all been recorded by social media content creators, one in particular filmed himself being dragged into the same police vans!

Now, go back to Soco, who, before all of this, called Islam an evil religion; think of all those non-violent, non-muslim moderates, blameless of any crime sat in the back of a police riot van on the evening of the Westminster protest. There are extremes and lines of division entrenched across the country.

The Righteous Anger of a Christian? 

Bob's prosecution and labelling of an entire religion as 'evil' is not just overly simplistic, but ignorant of the complexity, cultures, and nuances within any faith! Historical atrocities of Christianity clearly exist, such as the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition. The church castrated choir boys and targeted children for unspeakable crimes—no single religion holds a monopoly on moral virtue! 

Simplistic religious comparisons or judgments are often inaccurate and unfair. I don't know why Bob doesn't recognise that despite all of our faults and virtues, people bring their own ideas and interpretations to their religions? There has to be a better way? 

'You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.' 

                                    in the Bible somewhere

The Builders Blog

In his blog, Bob Soco says Europe will need Muscular Christianity, especially due to it's low birth rates. I don't know what this kind of Christianity entails precisely, but it is supposed to defend us against his perceived threat coming from his baneful 'elites' who support Islam. It is not invalid logic, but is it correct? 

His blog accuses the immigration policies of liberal politicians and secularism for Europe's decline, while pointing at that old Jewish-focused conspiracy theory blaming Jews for distraction and manipulation. Bob offers no meaty evidence. It is a dry read and confusing in places, but his overuse of 'elites' and 'super elites' are the familiar conspiracy theory buzzwords we've all heard before! 

This passionate character points to the fact that immigration is high, a risk, he said, will change European culture. This is a fair concern and vital for political discussion, but not a beefy counter religious intervention as he proposes. Although we might be on the same page on some points we cannot expect Christian forces to pressurise Europeans into breeding more! What denominations will make Islamic couples use contraception? Church and State need to be separate. 

Is Secularism Really That Bad? 

Western secularism is a principle that emerged from the enlightenment, and it guides the Western world, shaping British culture. It has promoted scientific fact, while also granting a multi-faith country. It also supported Catholicism in the 17th century, as well as the other major faiths today. It is not anti-theistic, many western secularists have a religion. 

That being said, such principles could still restrict religious practices that are perceived to be harmful to anyone, and end public funding for such activities; it can influence the regulation of immigration wisely. Some of these elected secular politicians have not listened to the people when they should have. This does not mean western secularism is the enemy. 

Reflections of Itself

As we have seen, Bob 'the Builder' Soco genuinely portrays Islam as a kind of clashing civilization holding dangerous values. Indeed, we can say, similar sentiments may have once been held by his own Saxon ancestors when their holy sites were vandalised by Emperor Charlemagne. This Christian Holy Roman muscle did what Bob is accusing the Islamic folk of doing in his videos; they butchered people—pagan Germanic people. These people died because they did not care to convert to his Jesus religion. 

My Conclusion... 

Not all Christians/Muslims are violent, yet both religions have profound histories in conquest. If you accept varying degrees of anti-social behaviour do exist across our vast spectrum of religiosity, you'll see that when a Christian demonises Islam it's simply another antisocial act in itself! Don't ignore that both the Quran and the Bible have passages that can be interpreted as extreme! There is moral religious inconsistency. 

Primarily, we aren't Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, but human. These labels are another layer, clothing for the soul, but yet, often weaponised. There's quite a radical feel to Bob's blog and his YouTube channel—things must have been heating up for some time in London. I hope it improves soon. 

The Psychology of My Alien Encounter

What Stared Back: An Encounter Beyond Common Understanding! 

7 to 9 min read

The Incident...

One evening, while drying off from my shower, I experienced something extraordinary. Could've worded that better, I know, but it was a vivid mental connection, a mind link, not my underwhelming chipolata. I supposed the extraterrestrial being was in its ship orbiting the planet. Yeah, totally batshit mental, right? The encounter was so intense, so real, that it has since left a mark on my psyche.

In a sudden overwhelming moment, I felt a mental state akin to a strong visual memory, realtime. A strange face, dark surroundings, cluttered with black and transparent plastic tubing, wires, and the luminosity of screen glare and diodes. Large humanesque eyes with pupils like an ibex fixated on me; their sharpness invaded my mind, directing my attention to the one eye. 

How Did I Feel? 

A stirring of fear and marvel was dizzying as I held firm to take in as much as I could, curiosity initially planted me there. Soon, I would feel insignificant. I sensed his disgust, his cold, calculating observation revealed powerfully emitted thoughts I could easily absorb intellectually. 

Questioning Myself 

I think I know what the crack was here! Prior to this, I was charged, buzzing, firing neurons, imagination was racing, a tad elated. I was in awe after watching a tv show featuring Spitfires, machine gun fire and evasive flying stimulated my imagination. I still do empathise with the astonishing World War II pilot who fought dogfights above Britain. I suspected my state of mind must have somehow aligned into that higher frequency of the beings observation. Honestly, at the time, I believed it was a connection, pure paranormal madness. Yes, it was very realistic to be fair, but that's how your imagination works.

Famous Corn-Based Snack With Same Alien 

Reaching Out for Answers

After the experience, I turned to the internet, desperate to understand what had happened like a pilchard. It was confusing, I can forgive myself. Wikipedia had a cracking article on Greys, the stereotypical alien species often depicted in popular culture. The face I saw held some resemblance to them. However, the entity I experienced was mentally dominant and war-like. Its black almond eye-caps were torn off. Damaged grey synthetic rubber coverings surrounded its exposed chalk-coloured wrinkled skin. This was not a small, humanoid figure but a tall, ancient powerful creature, similar to us hiding behind unnatural materials. I decided I should draw what I experienced, pencil sketching came first. I updated it, quite proud of the thing. 

Damage around eye-hole

The encounter left me somewhat obsessed. It was bizarre, a mind link from orbit, wow! However, being a realist, I had to poke it and question the ordeal. In another of my own blogposts on archetypes, here, I remembered exploring how such forms emerge in society. 

A little reflection

Who is giving rise to whom? The SciFi culture of the 1930s and 40s undoubtedly sparked our collective consciousness into thinking, awakening our fears, planting that cold, intelligent extraterrestrial into our imagination. As alien beings took form, developing in our books and film it acquired familiarity and now the typical grey space invader has our own homonid form. Nonetheless, it remains a soulless, logical observer from the dark void of space, not an angel, a demon, nor is it a monster, but maybe an amalgamation of all three!

The grey alien is an emergence of our existential anxieties peering into our possible future—will we become emotionless, purposeless super-minds? Will future Elon Musks' amplify our grey matter while our hearts wither away? What path is humanity on? 

Making the monster...

Old television shows like 'Ancient Aliens' used to appropriate any ancient artifact with large or almond-shaped eyes as proof of alien contact. I enjoyed my thoughts of war pilots before engaging in a war-like extraterrestrial, who was hostile. My vivid imagination empowered this archetype. It was all like a mental ideomotor effect, the puppetry of my own representation with strings pulled by the weight of Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, so called government cover ups, YouTube sightings, the Dudley Dorito, UFO communities, abductee accounts, the general media and hollywood, it has become a social manifestation. 

The Warning

The mind is always threading together its own rich tapestry, building a coherent worldview along with its vivid archetypal characters. Archetypes are  part of a culture's lore. I hope humanity will not become like those soulless super-intelligent aliens, profoundly synthetic and unnatural. Do they visit us from the future in hope of finding a solution to their own failures? Our global warming failure anxieties are personified as the face of this grim unnatural alien. As we continue sharing these encounters, they become more valid. Perhaps we should consider them as lessons from the higher aspects of our awareness instead? 

What Was This? 

Experiencing your own mental representation of an archetype can be unsettling, but also insightful. They are our deep concerns, interconnected creations nurtured globally in the collective consciousness. Our potent contemporary mythologies are impressive. They are channels of human belief forged into legitimate thought forms, personifications of our nightmares, dreams, or hopes. It is almost theological. Perhaps it is? Is this modern theology?

With eye-cap in situ

Starmer vs Sunak Election Debate

Televised Debates: An Ultimate Frustration-Fest

5 min read

No Compelling Character's Here! 

Ugh, mate. Where do you even begin? With the fact that debates aren't usually rapid fire responces? Come on, questions need more than a forty five second TIME LIMIT!? Rishi, why are you cutting disabled peoples PIP, you ****?! Maybe we'll begin with that weird popularity-gameshow-feel? It could have been aptly called 'Don't get booed!' It knobbled any real meaningful exchange—great thinking, itv! Public discourse is an outlet and they're supposed to be a grand showcase of political excellence, flirting their grand ideas to the masses, that's right, isn't it? 

This is like watching a telly debate

This supposed itv debate was a real chance to show my family what the Keir Starmer was really about with regard to all the important issues. Yep, his father was a nurse or some b*****ks, and his mother made tools. That was most of it, well, unless you count his anti-Tory, parliamentary programmed polemics, which was no more than stating the bleeding obvious that the country is ****. Such dystopia to come!

First off, can we acknowledge that CONSTANT interruptions need to change? It was a bit of a one way assault from a terrified Tory—noisy, rude, with scare tactics, my face rarely left my palm. Sir Keir had no bite, like Stallone in one of those old Rocky films where the dude isn't fighting back. Rishi, playing the angry posh kid did whatever he could to get his way. Neither party had a chance to properly explain anything and the moderator was a news reader—did itv let her do a news report on herself?  

We shouldn't forget the dodgy facts. Look, everyone has different viewpoints, but straight off bull***t shouldn't be allowed in these debates, we used to have fact checkers but that's clearly gone. Don't you think a candidate should be dishonourably disqualified if they lie or twist the truth? 

It may appear that I'm saying televised debates are a complete waste of time, because I am, quite frankly. They're about as informative as a hayes mini cooper manual for fitting a kitchen. As this is my blog, I have a responsibility to call out for some kind of meaty, proper lengthy debate—maybe a Netflix or YouTube event would do it justice because itv are sporting a no frills value lettuce.