Empathy for JesusWritten By: Hermes |
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