+ Submit News Link

Empathy for Jesus

Written By: Hermes

Posted: 3/8/2004 12:00:00 AM   Reads: 498   Submitted By:jeff   Category: Religion
 
Empathy for Jesus 
by Hermes  
 
Regarding the blithering frenzy over the violent 
pagan pornography that is Mel Gibson’s "Christian" 
movie, I’d like to to offer a rational antidote. 
 
First, let me assuage any possible fears that I’m 
biased toward any religion. I don’t belong to one, 
basically never have and absolutely never will. I’ve 
read enough legitimate, scholarly criticisms of the 
arrogant, insular Talmudic mentality and the glaring 
inaccuracies of the Old Testament/Torah to never 
officially join Judaism. Volumes have been written 
about the religion’s flaws and probably will continue 
to be. So, no yarmulke or anything of the kind for me 
in this lifetime, I assure you. This article, 
however, is about (what in my opinion is) the utter 
illegitimacy of (mainstream) Christianity - not to be 
confused with Jesus, or so I want to believe. 
 
Going back to Jesus’ crucifixion, if he was God (or 
just a god) who worked the miracles attributed 
(truthfully or not) to him, it wasn’t known to the 
local (Jerusalem) Jews at the time of his death. Or 
IF it was whispered or rumored among them, they, like 
any reasonably rational person today, would’ve 
required PROOF of such divinity. They received none.  
They were ordinary, law-abiding citizens who saw an 
angry agitator from another town - the anger obviously 
being the turning over of the tables of the "money 
changers" (vendors) at the Temple of Solomon. Such an 
act, when taken in the context of Jesus’ previous 
teachings and deeds, is noble and righteous. (Ralph 
Nader would be proud). But to the locals he was just 
another furious wacko who deserved the death penalty.  
(Romans crucified thousands of Jews). Jesus’ death, 
while primarily the responsibility of the Romans, was 
unfortunately the result of the ignorance of the local 
HUMANS who happened to be Jewish. 
 
I have a theory - albeit a tentative one - about 
what may be one factor why the local Jews didn’t 
believe Jesus to be their King. The word Messiah 
means Annointed One. The literal meaning of annointed 
is "covered in fat." Is it possible, since it’s known 
that Jesus didn’t "stand out in a crowd" - had no 
outstanding physical characteristics - that he was 
simply too skinny and short to be kingly? (I realize 
annointed could have a different meaning, but figure 
the theory is worth a shot anyway). Or in the very 
least, someone who looked so ordinary would’ve 
required more time to prove his King/God (or god) 
status - a luxury not afforded to him during that 
fateful Passover. 
 
That brings us to what Jesus HIMSELF allegedly 
said... or rather what he DIDN’T say. And that was 
anything having to do with the alleged prophecy of the 
Old Testament regarding his being the Lamb of God or 
the Redeemer of Humanity. In fact, what he DID say 
about the future TWO Messiahs - the Kingly and the 
Priestly one - very much appears to negate himself 
from the REAL salvation of mankind, therby equally 
nullifying any abstract, intangible concept of 
sacrifice of the kind in which ancient pagans would 
throw children into volcanos to "appease the gods."  
(Both ascribe to an intangible greater good that comes 
from something atrocious). 
 
I’m too busy or otherwise occupied (lazy) to do the 
research if the question can even be answered, but 
perhaps someone will offer (a) fact(s) of which I’m 
unaware. What’s unclear is WHEN the belief of Jesus’ 
death for the sins of (only) his "followers" came to 
be. How did that evolve out of the supposed Redeemer 
of ALL Humanity prophecy? The Christians of the first 
century, like Jesus, didn’t intend to start a new 
religion. They wanted only a new and improved version 
of Judaism. However, it seems given that at least a 
few of them would’ve made a connection between Jesus’ 
death and the alleged prophecy from God. If so, it 
also seems that, at that early stage, they probably 
would’ve believed Jesus to be the REAL Redeemer - the 
one who dies for the REAL salvation of humanity (if 
such an act is or will be real) - and not just a 
quickie "salvation" for anyone who joins the club.  
 
Around the same time John of Patmos wrote 
Revelations, Rabbi Akiva finished the compilation of 
(word-of-mouth) stories that is the Torah. I think 
it’s a safe assumption that the 
quickie-"salvation"-through-pagan-sacrifice belief 
didn’t emerge as the central "Christian" tenet AT 
LEAST until all the books of the Bible - or the ones 
accepted by Constantine the Antichrist and his ilk in 
325 CE - were written and perhaps even later than that 
or maybe much later. Point is, by the time the 
(paganized) "Christians" began spouting their "died 
for YOUR sins" routine, the Jews already had a solid 
belief system in place regarding sin and salvation, 
Heaven and Hell etc. (The Talmud, which came a little 
later, further strengthened the faith, albeit not in a 
completely benign way). So, even in early 
Christianity, any assumption that Jews were ignorant 
or mistaken in their not buying into the sacrifice is, 
in the very least, monstrously arrogant to the point 
of stark raving delusion and, at most, apparently the 
primary factor in later horrors like the Spanish 
Inquisition and the Holocaust. 
 
Even IF it was a died-for-your-sins barrage from the 
beginning, I don’t see how the truly Highest Power 
could hold anything against anyone who didn’t/doesn’t 
believe, without evidence, that an ordinary-looking 
malcontent from Nazareth who died like a human was THE 
One.  
 
While some Jews and other non-Christians may reject 
Jesus (as THE Redeemer) simply out of family tradition 
or otherwise unenlightened reasons, I want to believe 
more people would do so for MORAL reasons and out of 
respect and empathy for Jesus. Face it, there’s a 
SERIOUS moral problem with even the SUBCONSCIOUS 
suggestion that anyone’s sins/crimes are bought and 
paid for. (And too many religious people’s inability 
to distinguish sin from crime ought to raise beaucoup 
red flags, but incredibly, no one seems to notice or 
care). It ENABLES evil. Period. 
 
It’s a lesson called responsibility. 
 
For all we know, the belief in the need for Jesus 
the Lightning Rod to absolve sin and go to Heaven is 
redundant. In the spirit of the mind of (the single 
and/or collective Highest Power we call) God being 
different from humans, who’s to say the human concept 
of punishment or karma would apply to ANYONE in their 
afterlife and/or reincarnation? Even history’s most 
monstrous figures like Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler - 
neither of whom subscribed to Christianity (or 
seriously so) that I’m aware of - could begin anew 
after leaving this plane; perhaps, in such extreme 
cases, with their memories erased. (Or if those 2 
aren’t the best examples, substitute any clearly 
non-Christian monster like Pol Pot). What good is 
there in assigning human values or concepts to 
anything ethereal in the absence of supporting 
evidence? 
 
As strongly opposed as I am to teaching the quickie 
"salvation" belief, I also realize the majority of 
Christians aren’t bad people. They just don’t NEED 
anyone to die for their measly, dumb, boring little 
sins. Until the Whole Truth is known, the only moral, 
honest, unbiased way to teach the sin-and-salvation 
topic is that, regardless of religious identity, there 
MAY be a price to pay (in this world and/or the 
afterlife and/or next life) for serious wrongdoing and 
there MAY not, so the only intelligent way is to be 
and do good; to live by the Do Unto Others (Golden) 
Rule. 
 
It doesn’t seem possible to believe in the sacrifice 
without believing Christianity is the ONLY way to 
Heaven, but I reckon certain peculiar and/or confused 
minds that may or may not suffer from information 
overload could believe the former without the latter.  
My conscience/soul will always direct me toward 
plurality, global consciousness as opposed to anything 
that divides as in fundamentalism. If I’m wrong, that 
would presumably mean Jesus is either THE God of at 
least THIS universe AND his intention was, in fact, 
the sacrifice I reject. If I’m to be in any way 
punished for having a rational, questioning mind, then 
I hope the Christian God would be as merciful with me 
as mine would be with all those who would or will be 
proven wrong. Wouldn’t it be infinitely preferable, 
when the existence of intelligent nonhuman life is 
confirmed, that it be something that encompasses the 
most truly important points of all religions and 
worldviews rather than just one being victorious? 
 
 
E-mail Hermes at batunu@yahoo.com  
 
 
 


Share |


COMMENTS

Please login or become a member to post a comment.