Tag: The God Question

How Belief in the Resurrection Gained Political Power

📅 Today is Day 13 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The resurrection of Jesus began as a fringe belief within a marginalized sect of Judaism. But within just a few centuries, it would become the foundational claim of the Roman Empire’s official religion. That dramatic shift—from persecuted minority to imperial theology—deserves closer scrutiny.

How did a resurrection story gain so much political power? And what does that say about the claim itself?

🏛 From Martyrdom to Empire

In the first few decades after Jesus’ death, belief in his resurrection spread primarily among disenfranchised Jews and Gentiles. The early Christians were politically powerless, often persecuted by both Jewish and Roman authorities.

But things began to change dramatically in the 4th century CE:

  • 313 CE – The Edict of Milan: Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, ending official persecution.
  • 325 CE – Council of Nicaea: Constantine called the first ecumenical council to unify Christian belief—centering on Jesus’ divinity and resurrection.
  • 380 CE – The Edict of Thessalonica: Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

By then, the resurrection of Jesus was no longer just a belief. It was imperial doctrine, enforced by law and embedded in political identity.

🔁 Belief as a Tool of Power

Why would the Roman state embrace and elevate the resurrection story?

Because it provided:

  • Legitimacy: A risen, divine savior validated the Empire’s divine favor and destiny.
  • Unity: A standardized faith helped unify a vast, diverse empire.
  • Control: The Church could define heresy and suppress dissent.

As church historian Eusebius documented, Constantine claimed divine dreams and visions that confirmed his power was ordained by the resurrected Christ. The cross became not a symbol of martyrdom, but a military standard. Jesus was repurposed—from radical teacher to imperial figurehead.

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

  • The belief in the resurrection gained strength not through empirical confirmation, but through political endorsement. Its truth value was not tested—it was legislated.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

  • The rapid growth of Christianity is often cited as evidence of the resurrection’s truth. But alternative explanations—such as political opportunism, social utility, and psychological appeal—are rarely considered in traditional settings.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

  • There is no independent evidence that the resurrection story caused Christianity’s rise. What we do have is ample evidence that Rome institutionalized it for its own purposes.

4. Is the claim falsifiable?

  • Once attached to empire, the resurrection became an unquestionable truth. Doubt was punishable. Heresy was treason. This made the claim immune to criticism.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

  • If the resurrection was a genuine historical miracle, why did it require imperial power to gain dominance?
  • Why did belief in it mirror the structure of empire more than the teachings of Jesus?
  • Does the resurrection persist because it’s true—or because it became useful?

✍️ Conclusion

The rise of resurrection belief to political dominance says more about power than proof. Once aligned with Rome, Christianity became less about truth and more about control.

The God Question’s Core Philosophy challenges us to see this transformation clearly: Not all beliefs rise because they are true—some rise because they serve empire.

If a miracle requires a government to enforce it, can we still call it divine?

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: “How did Rome become Christian?”

Description: This video explores the transformation of Christianity from a persecuted sect to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. It examines the social, political, and theological factors that contributed to this significant shift, including the role of Emperor Constantine and the integration of Christian doctrine into imperial policy.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Resurrection in Other Religions: A Common Myth?

📅 Today is Day 12 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

Each Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus as a singular event—unprecedented in history and unique in meaning. The claim is clear: Jesus rose from the dead, proving he was divine and offering salvation to all who believe.

But is the idea of resurrection truly unique?

Today, we turn to comparative religion and mythology to ask: Is the Christian resurrection narrative one-of-a-kind, or does it echo a broader pattern in ancient religions and cultural myths?

🧭 Resurrection Before Christianity?

Long before the New Testament was written, civilizations across the Mediterranean and Near East told stories of gods and heroes who died and returned to life. These tales often symbolized agricultural cycles, cosmic battles, or moral victories. Some of the most frequently cited examples include:

  • Osiris (Egyptian Mythology): Murdered and dismembered by his brother Set, Osiris is reassembled and resurrected by his wife Isis, becoming lord of the underworld.
  • Dionysus (Greek Mythology): A god of wine and fertility, Dionysus was dismembered and reborn. His cult emphasized rebirth and transformation.
  • Tammuz (Sumerian Mythology): A shepherd-god whose death and return are tied to seasonal changes and fertility rituals.
  • Mithras (Roman Cult): Though not a direct resurrection story, Mithraic worship included themes of cosmic struggle, salvation, and life after death. The cult predates or parallels early Christianity.

While the details differ, the themes of death, descent, and return to life are ancient and widespread.

📖 So What Sets Jesus Apart?

Christian apologists argue that Jesus’ resurrection is unique because:

  • It’s claimed as a historical event, not myth or metaphor.
  • It is central to salvation, not symbolic of nature or harvest.
  • Jesus predicted his death and resurrection in advance.
  • The empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances are offered as evidence.

But do these distinctions hold up under scrutiny?

🔍 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

  • The uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection rests more on theological interpretation than verifiable evidence.
  • The parallels to earlier resurrection myths are often dismissed by believers without engaging the historical and literary data.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

  • The presence of earlier dying-and-rising gods suggests a pattern in religious imagination and storytelling.
  • It’s reasonable to ask whether Jesus’ resurrection story evolved within a cultural context already familiar with similar myths.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

  • Christian resurrection claims rely almost exclusively on insider testimony (New Testament writers).
  • There is no neutral, non-Christian documentation confirming a bodily resurrection.

4. Is the claim falsifiable?

  • Like other mythic resurrection stories, Jesus’ resurrection is immune to verification or disproof.
  • It rests entirely on faith and interpretation, not public, testable evidence.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

  • If God wanted to prove the resurrection as uniquely true, why mirror patterns found in pagan mythology?
  • If myth is a natural human expression of hope and transformation, could the Christian resurrection be another example—rather than an exception?

✍️ Conclusion

The resurrection of Jesus may feel uniquely sacred to Christians, but it exists within a larger, older pattern of myth and meaning. Cultures have long told stories of death and rebirth—perhaps because such stories reflect our deepest fears and hopes.

What sets Jesus apart, then, is not the structure of the story—but the claim of literal truth attached to it. And that’s where scrutiny matters most.

In a world filled with similar tales, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If resurrection is a common mythic theme, we must ask: What makes the Christian version any more real?

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: How Dying and Rising Gods Were Syncretized With Judaism w/ Richard Carrier

Dying and Rising Gods were a popular trend in the first century and the years leading up to it. The Jews then syncretized their faith with the dying and rising God mytheme and created Jesus.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Would a Loving God Use a Bloody Execution to Offer Salvation?

📅 Today is Day 11 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

Christianity claims to be the story of a loving God who so cared for humanity that He offered His only son as a sacrificial substitute for our sins. This claim lies at the heart of the Easter message—and for many, it’s the cornerstone of faith, comfort, and salvation.

And yet, it invites one of the most morally troubling and intellectually pressing questions we can ask:

Why would a loving, all-powerful God require a bloody execution to forgive the people He created?

If we apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy—a framework that emphasizes intellectual honesty, logical consistency, and moral clarity over blind faith or inherited doctrine—this question becomes not just important but urgent. It forces us to examine the underlying theology, its ethical implications, and whether the traditional Christian narrative of atonement aligns with the character of a God truly worth believing in.

❖ The Problem of Substitutionary Atonement

The dominant Christian explanation for Jesus’ death is called penal substitution: the belief that Jesus was punished in our place, satisfying God’s justice so that we might be spared. This model casts God as both judge and executioner—a deity who cannot simply forgive but must see blood spilled to balance the cosmic scales of justice.

This theological framework may feel familiar and even sacred to many—but it raises profound moral and logical concerns:

  • Is it just to punish the innocent for the guilty?
    In any human legal system, punishing an innocent person instead of the guilty would be considered a miscarriage of justice—not the pinnacle of love.
  • Why would divine love be contingent on violence?
    Why would God’s forgiveness hinge on suffering? Why isn’t divine mercy enough?
  • Why can’t an all-loving, all-powerful being forgive without demanding death?
    Human parents can forgive their children without sacrificing another sibling. Are we to believe that our moral instincts about love and justice are more advanced than God’s?

The penal substitution model mirrors the logic of ancient tribal religion more than enlightened moral thinking. It casts God in the image of pagan kings and blood-hungry deities—demanding appeasement, reparation, and death.

❖ What Love Looks Like

The New Testament insists that “God is love.” But is love best demonstrated through the orchestrated execution of a beloved son?

Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we must challenge the assumption that divine love and divine violence are compatible.

  • Would we admire a parent who demands the death of an innocent child to forgive a guilty one?
  • Would we call that love—or emotional abuse?
  • If God had to “satisfy justice,” who created that justice system?
  • If God is the author of the moral law, why create a system in which blood is the only currency of forgiveness?

If Jesus had to die to meet the demands of some cosmic ledger, it implies either:

  1. God did not create the law (meaning there’s a higher authority above God), or
  2. God created the law and refuses to bend it, even when love and compassion demand it.

Either conclusion is problematic for the traditional view of God as supreme in love, morality, and power.

❖ What If the Cross Wasn’t About Payment?

A growing number of theologians, philosophers, and progressive Christians offer a radically different interpretation of the cross. They suggest that Jesus was not a sacrifice God needed, but a victim of humanity’s addiction to scapegoating and violence.

In this view:

  • The crucifixion exposes human cruelty, not divine necessity.
  • Jesus is not the fulfillment of God’s wrath, but the target of our wrath.
  • The cross is not about transaction, but transformation.

Seen this way, God does not demand the cross—we do. Jesus submits, not to appease God, but to break the cycle of violence and reveal the emptiness of religious bloodlust.

His resurrection, then, is not a divine seal of approval on execution—but a divine reversal of injustice. A cosmic protest against the idea that death, violence, and empire get the last word.

This vision paints a picture of a God who is morally intelligible, whose love is not conditioned on pain, and whose justice restores rather than destroys.

❖ A God Worth Believing In

At its core, this post asks a deeper question:

Is the traditional Easter story one we can still affirm as reasonable, moral, and true?

Because if God is truly good:

  • Why would He build a salvation plan around violence?
  • Why would forgiveness require suffering?
  • Why would love look like death?

And if God is truly powerful:

  • Why limit salvation to those who accept a specific historical interpretation of a blood ritual?
  • Why make divine love dependent on doctrinal agreement about a Roman execution?

Using The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we must not settle for sentiment or tradition. We must hold our conception of God to the highest moral standards—higher than we would demand of ourselves. If a human parent, judge, or leader acted the way God is described in penal substitution theory, we would be appalled. We must have the courage to ask: Should we hold our God to a lower moral bar than our neighbors?

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
    • Substitutionary atonement is a theological assertion without independent evidence. It demands belief in a metaphysical debt and divine wrath that must be satisfied by blood.
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
    • Historically, yes. Early Christians embraced many views of atonement, including Christus Victor (Jesus triumphs over evil) and moral influence (Jesus inspires repentance). Penal substitution became dominant only after the Protestant Reformation. But most modern churches present it as the only valid view.
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
    • No moral philosophy affirms that punishing the innocent is just. No legal system embraces substitutionary justice. The claim lives entirely within religious tradition.
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
    • Not really. The idea that Jesus’ death satisfied God’s justice is treated as sacred mystery, shielded from moral scrutiny or rational challenge.
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
    • Absolutely. If God is love, why violence? If God is just, why punish the innocent? If God is powerful, why not simply forgive?

❖ Conclusion

If the Easter story is meant to reveal the love of God, we must ask whether the model of a bloody execution—required by divine decree—truly does that.

A God who demands blood is not morally superior to a God who simply forgives. In fact, the latter seems more worthy of reverence, trust, and belief.

Perhaps the real scandal of Easter is not that Jesus died—but that we thought God needed Him to.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: “Rethinking Penal Substitutionary Atonement”

Description:

This video offers a critical examination of the traditional penal substitutionary atonement theory, exploring alternative perspectives that emphasize a more compassionate and non-violent understanding of God’s nature. It challenges viewers to reconsider the implications of believing in a deity who requires violent sacrifice for forgiveness.​

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Welcome to The God Question

Is Belief in God Rational? Let’s Examine the Evidence.

For much of my life, I accepted God’s existence without question. Faith provided comfort, certainty, and a framework for understanding the world. But as I began to critically examine my beliefs, I encountered an unsettling thought: What if I’ve been mistaken?

This question is not an attack on faith—it’s an invitation to investigate. If God exists, shouldn’t the evidence be undeniable? If He doesn’t, why do so many people believe?

The Problem with Faith as Evidence

Religious belief is often sustained by faith, but is faith a reliable path to truth? If faith can justify belief in any god—Jesus, Allah, Krishna, or Zeus—how do we determine which is correct? Can personal conviction alone serve as proof?

Where Science and Reason Fit In

Science demands testable claims and repeatable evidence, yet religious belief often relies on personal experience and ancient texts. If we used faith-based reasoning in medicine or law, would we trust the results?

An Invitation to Question

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do believe that questioning is the first step toward understanding. Here at The God Question, we explore topics like:

  • Is there verifiable evidence for God?
  • Why do people cling to faith despite contradictions?
  • Can morality exist without religion?
  • What psychological and cultural forces sustain belief?

This blog isn’t about rejecting faith outright—it’s about exploring the hard questions that many hesitate to ask.

Join the Conversation

If you’ve ever doubted, wondered, or sought deeper clarity, you’re in the right place. Let’s examine the evidence, challenge assumptions, and search for truth—wherever it may lead.

🔹 Read the Blog – Start exploring the questions that matter.🔹 Subscribe – Get updates on new posts.🔹 Share Your Thoughts – Engage in meaningful discussion.