Sun-worshipers were the majority and their temples, their priests and their ceremonies were the backbone of the New Imperial Religion, the sun-worshipers never even noticed that the religion had changed, they met on the same day, Sunday, had the same priests perform the same ceremonies in the same robes as before and they chanted "Ie Zeus!" as they had before.

All the scriptures not approved by the government were destroyed, all priests of Apollo remained in place, the statues of Apollo remained, the altars are still there in every Catholic church, the Christians had to go to a pagan temple and worship with the sun-worshipers, no home churches, synagogues or private churches could meet and Christians who did not submit to the Roman Church were killed or persecuted.

Knowing who wrote or completely manipulated the documents that you are studying will open up whole new revelations about the confusing or conflicting passages, Christ would return in that generation, coming on a white horse, it would be the Caesar who conquered Jerusalem for God. Josephus attempted to have that Caesar declared the returned Messiah by the Roman Senate. That was the plan and that is the reason a strange dead end theology was left hanging, the Senate balked and the Popes took on the role of Christ on Earth.

Obedience to authority screams from every page and verse, the author was Rome, interpret it with that understanding, not your illusion that these are the words of Apostles or even the real Jesus. I think the real Jesus, Yahshua, is visible but heavily redrawn.

The vast majority was chosen or written to serve the purposes of the Roman Empire, just pretend that you believe me and read it with that attitude, you will become enlightened.

my country is a haven for natural calamities. in 2013, typhoon yolanda almost wiped out the city of tacloban. did that mean that God abandoned them?

Personally I reject solipsism because I don't think it's possible to simulate my wife, children, and other people I know personally without having a similar type of subjective experience that I am currently having. I can be confident that my subjective experience is "real" with Descartes cogito ergo sum.
I'm slightly less confident, though pretty darn confident, that we aren't all in some kind of simulated universe (which would have some explanatory power WRT quantum weirdness and the fermi paradox), and I see no reason that subjective experience couldn't exist inside such a simulation. In a way, theism proposes that we are in God's simulation, as he is required to sustain it (just like an unimaginably powerful supercomputer would be required to sustain a simulated universe).
If you've never read it, here is a rigorous version of the simulation argument.
One's beliefs about the present, given reasonable assumptions, can be used to make arguments about the future. The Doomsday argument is a bit more concerning. The anthropic principle and observation selection effects and their use in modern philosophy is fascinating, though sometimes it makes my head hurt, lol. You might find arguments on fine tuning and a cosmic designer interesting, though I'd start at the beginning of the book for background. Can't beat a free online book, and this one is pretty well recommended.

Edit to add: Personally I think it would be unethical to run accurate ancestor simulations. Why? The problem of suffering.

I'm sorry ... which special privileges am I claiming, exactly?

Do I find it unreasonable for you to live as though the
universe is not Necessary?

No.

Do I find it unreasonable for you to claim knowledge about what the difference would even be, at your scale, between a Necessary and a Contingent universe?

Yes, but more or less harmless.

Do I find it more arbitrary for you and those like you to accrue special privilege within the legal and social fabric of the society in which I appear to live because of your phantasmagorical man behind the curtain than for me to accrue no such special privilege despite having a similarly phantasmagorical me behind the curtain?

Yes, and not at all harmless.

Interesting, OK.

It seems like it would be hard to care deeply about anything if you were constantly and actively maintaining a side hypothesis that nothing exists independently of you. But I assume you don't find that to be the case?

I do not reject solopsism. I take no position on it. If all of this is illusory I act within the apparent patterns of the illusion. If it is all real I act within the apparent patterns of reality. In either case, my actions would be the same.

I do not await confirmation on this issue before acting, because to do so would be paralyzing.

So in other words, you are, at some level, not intellectually committed to a world where busses are real, but you have nonetheless made a pragmatic decision to live as if busses do in fact have some existence that is independent of you. That's fine. That pragmatic reason is ... reasonable. And so my point is then -- in a similar spirit -- that it is perfectly reasonable, and not entirely arbitrary, for me to live as if the universe is contingent, for pragmatic reasons. If I approach the universe as if it is contingent, I am then inclined to remind myself, again and again, that every moment is a gift. In other words, I become grateful. And I find that when I live gratefully, I live well. It just works. Do you think my pragmatic reason for living in this way is any more arbitrary than your pragmatic reason for living as if busses are real?

I realize that I am putting forward a tu quoque argument here, but then again my point is not to compel you to view the world as I do, but simply to argue that I am being reasonable.

Well, OK, but you first.

Ho, ho! I cry foul on you, sir. You issued the challenge, you made the claim, now you back away?

However, as it happens my part is quickly handled and so I do not mind. For the record I am a Skeptic.

As far as Solipsism is concerned, I have no knowledge that would dispute it, nor any that would confirm it, so there we are.

While there appears to be an external world and beings populating said world, this establishes only that there appears to be an external world and beings populating that world. If I admit to a preference for a world in which something other than Over-Darren exists, perhaps that is only what Over-Darren wishes me to wish (tricky bastard).

While I may live my life, even think my thoughts, as though the world I appear to inhabit is anything other than a phantom of somethings imagination, it is mostly from force of habit and where reason enters the picture it is from the conclusion that according to the “rules” that I think I remember to this reality I think I inhabit, stepping in front of a bus will hurt.

Well, OK, but you first.

My point is, in a sense, that I don't know (with absolute certainty) that solipsism is wrong, and yet I am pretty sure that I am rejecting it for reasons that are not arbitrary or just based on subjective feeling. I could try to articulate why I do reject it, but I would like you and Brian Green Adams to have a go at it first.