I’ve just read a bunch of whiny, ranty posts on Facebook about Elizabeth Warren’s plan to forgive the loans of a bunch of people who are massively in debt, unable to declare bankruptcy (thanks to bullshit GOP policies that wiped out the rules for those who needed the assistance the most). These people were sold a bill of goods when they took out those loans from predatory lenders for fake colleges that peddled lies wrapped up in a promise of a better future. Continue reading “Somebody pulled a pin…”
Here’s my latest, thanks to some recent ugly discourse on FB regarding immigration & the military. From the same source, some months ago, I got asked how I felt about Nazi re-enactors who came to local events. Now I’m chewing on why reenactments are needed at all.
There are multiple prompts for this post, but the core points come from the three articles below and the ensuing discussion of access to citizenship through service as an immigrant, which recently changed, thanks to isolationist bullshit coming from the white nationalists (read: Nazis) currently in charge of our country’s administration.
There’s also the editorial cartoon, dated January 17, 2018, from Jeff Danziger, through the Washington Post Writers Group, that depicts a couple of soldiers sitting and talking while on watch against attack in an unspecified desert location.
The first soldier says, “Remember that guy Morales who used to be in our unit? The guy who came to the U.S. at ten years old, did well in school, went to college, then enlisted, made Sergeant, served in a combat zone, honorably discharged, got married, had two kids…”
The second soldier says, “What about him?”
And the first one replies, “They’re deporting him.”
I’m not going to reproduce the dialogue from the FB post, because that would be wrong, but it got me thinking and then it got me angry.
I posted a link to the following HuffPo article because it popped up in the way only FB links to articles can, at least until FB screws up their feed and stops this from happening.
See, I’m from more than one of those “shithole” countries: Russia (Belarus and The Ukraine, if you must know), Poland, Austria, even England, if the English were Jewish. And I grew up in Rochester, in an Italian neighborhood, full of first gen kids. Me and my friends? We’re all children of immigrants. Some of us haven’t forgotten that. And just in case you thought it was only Latinx who were in danger here, there’s this guy, too. Being of European extraction isn’t enough to protect you, if you only have a Green Card.
In fact, some of the bloody awful stuff to come in advance of the Civil War revolved around immigrants who weren’t slaves. In the grand scheme, what white folks did to slaves is far beyond, but this is part and parcel of today’s immigrant trouble. Folks lose sight of it because the Civil War was about slavery and we want to maintain that focus for obvious reasons, but racism wasn’t isolated to slavery by any stretch. Here’s a sample of what I mean.
But you know what finally set me off? This article, HISTORYNET: The Civil War Reenactor’s Brave New World, in turns laments the “good old days” and sees current events as problematic. The money quote is below:
“Reenactors passionately affirm that they exist to honor history, not to serve as a conduit for hatred. But the history of the Civil War is entwined with hatred, both racial and political, and reenactors are confronted with emerging evidence that, in the public’s eyes at least, it is not always easy to take a scalpel and cleanly separate one from the other.”
And that led to the storm. Here’s the result, all in one post.
Seems to me, taking the losing side in any reenactment is an exercise in selective filtering. How do you play a Nazi without believing they were right? I mean, this is more than just a war game where you pick up a tiny plastic figure and put it on a table-based battlefield to explore strategy.
We’re talking about the full kit: Uniform, weapons, language. Same thing with Confederate soldiers. Same with virtually any war-culture where the winners write the books and the losers have to hope that someone will tell their side, eventually.
So that leads me to wonder…
If you can justify playing the bad guy, how does your brain allow it? How do you keep “this is what they did” from being “this is what I would do if I was given the opportunity?”
As it happens, I think (but could be wrong) that I am often the only available “Jew” in this social circle, and that makes me de facto authority on the subject of “what’s offensive” to my people when subjects like these come up. Here’s the funny thing: I make for a poor sounding board. I’m a practicing UU, ethnically but not religiously Jewish. I relate because of my heritage, but I wasn’t raised in the faith.
So when I’m asked how I feel about Nazis who re-enact, I come at it from a different angle than most of my more religious tribe members. It’s personal because I lost family on both sides of the Front in Germany. Austrians who never made it out. They died in the camps.
I also lost a Russian-American cousin who fought in the military. Jack Orshansky was a member of the Army Air Force and he was killed in action in 1945, in Germany. His mother was my Great Aunt. He was a first generation anchor baby for the family, who immigrated around 1900.
Funny, that. Chain migration brought the Orshansky family from Russia to the US, where Jack was born, and then at the tender age of 26 died to help free the Germans from the Nazis.
His brother, Nat, was born in Russia. His cousin, my Grandmother, was born here, in Brooklyn.
In fact, all of my grandparents were born here. All of them were anchor babies. My father, second generation, served in the Army just after the end of the Korean War. Immigrants. Worthless? Because we come from Europe, but not the part the Nazis in this country value.
When I hear how awful these DACA people are today, how they’re all “illegals” and should go home, I have a problem with that. A big one.
I want to know when your family arrived in this country. Forget about “legal” immigration. Laws change and what was once legal now isn’t.
When you call me out for asking when your family arrived, and you suggest that I’m not serious about this, maybe think about WHY I’m asking the question, because almost certainly I’m not joking. I’m deadly serious. I don’t care who you are or how long we’ve known each other.
If you haven’t thought about when your family came here, if you lack empathy and can’t put yourself in the place of these families, many of whom left home for a better life and often just to survive because certain death awaited them otherwise? That’s your privilege talking.
If you can’t see how your privilege makes it possible for you to call these people “illegals” or you side with your friends rather than calling THEM out over their privilege? If you think I’m kidding, I don’t think you know me well enough. I don’t joke about this stuff.
I never ever thought it was funny. I don’t think it’s funny now. I’m not amused. I’m angry. I may not practice my faith but I own every inch of this Ashkenazi Jewish skin and I will call you out. If you don’t like it, feel free to unfriend me. Unfollow me. Whatever you need.
And don’t EVER ask me again what I think of Nazi re-enactors. Or Confederates. Or anyone else who purports to show “the other side, because someone has to.”
If you feel comfortable playing Nazi, I don’t want to be near you. Not ever. If your friends are okay with it? Same.
It is my contention that it is disingenuous at best to point a finger at someone who got here because his parents brought him here without permission, who has served as a member of our defense department, who pays taxes and contributes as a member of society and say that the person is “illegal” when those laws are arbitrary and often designed to shut out people based on race, religion, or any other society-assigned trait. It’s not how or why this country was founded and is antithetical to the purpose of the United States as a whole.
Dave, from Colorado, sums it up best in this sound clip from Washington Journal, courtesy of C-SPAN.org:
I have a lot more to say on the subject, none of it polite.
Let’s start with the obvious: There is no question in my mind that Trump is at the top of the chain of indictments Mueller is building in his ongoing investigation.
There. Now that’s out of the way, here’s something to ponder, while you’re popping that popcorn awaiting the next big thing in Reality White House.
The following is going to appear as a massive digression, but it’s vitally important to understand this portion of European history to put today’s events in context, so bear with me while I share a brief history lesson with you.
Around the middle of last year, I wrote this post. I was trying to put some of my own history, including my ability to see historical patterns, in context.
In the class, we built a contextual timeline that eventually led to World War II. The timeline included a thorough discussion of the slow build-up of antisemitism that resulted in six million Jewish deaths.
Along the way, we talked about the Dreyfus Affair, (L’affaire Dreyfus). Feel free to skip the following if you already know where this is leading, but I encourage you to check out the links below anyway. You might learn something.
In 1899, Georges Méliès (best known for his silent Les Voyage Dans La Lune/A Trip to the Moon and highlighted in the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, on which the movie Hugo is based), released a silent film, which was promptly censored in France. The fragment shown below is all that remains of the original film.
The Dreyfus Affair – The Censored Film by Georges Méliès (1899)
If you’re a cinema buff, you might already know how sensitive and damaging the original film proved to be, or you can read about it here, on Open Culture, which provides another link to what remains of the original:
In hindsight, there is no question regarding the anti-Semitism reflected in the incident. The phrase J’accuse! became, for a time, a common generic expression of outrage and accusation, but started with Zola’s article on Dreyfus. Dramatic treatments include (most famously) I Accuse!, a 1958 film with José Ferrer in the Dreyfus role, and Prisoner of Honor, with Richard Dreyfuss (ultimately no relation) as Alfred Dreyfus.
Why is this important?
Well, let’s see.
At the moment, there’s a prominent Jew in the White House. In truth, there are two, but only one of them, Jared Kushner, was born that way. His father, Charles Kushner is the son of Jewish Belarusian immigrants. Dad served prison time for unauthorized use of funds.
There’s a lot of questions now concerning Jared’s own role in RussiaGate.
Why do I find this disturbing?
There’s no question that this appears on the surface to be shady dealing, but if you want my opinion (which you do if you’re reading these words, nu?), I think that this won’t just be Trump throwing his son-in-law under a well-deserved bus. It could be the start of a raging witch hunt that could lead to our own holocaust.
With white supremacists in the highest offices, is it really a stretch to think that maybe this is the ultimate goal? After all, we’ve already seen how fragile white egos treat the Black Lives Matter movement. And it’s certainly true that we came pretty darn close to witnessing what a Jewish candidate might have absorbed in the way of hateful propaganda. (If only Sanders had won the nomination, you’d already know what I was talking about here.)
The cynic in me thinks this is a perfect excuse to free Trump’s family from Jewish influence. The question is how far he will go to protect himself, who he will toss under the bus along with Kushner, and where we will be a year from now, come Election Day 2018.
On a separate blog, a very VERY long time ago, I posted this exploration into the foundation of Christianity and Jesus.
As I have no desire whatsoever to link this blog to that one, I will occasionally reproduce the content from one into the other.
Link to this? Dandy. Steal it? I will come after you. Ask questions? By all means. Rant? You can’t imagine how fast I will block you.
January 7 & 8, 2006: I was just thinking about this…
In the middle of the funeral this morning (yes, I went, alone), I had an epiphany of my own, thanks to the references of the priest to the old testament and the Jewish thoughts on death.
How on earth did we go so far away from the original concept, that we had to be *led* by someone, deified or otherwise, to the right place? At what point did Hell get introduced and why? Is it a Greek thing? Roman? How odd… I’m open to discussion on this one.
Meanwhile, here’s the results of the latest quiz. I’m not shocked at all. And I’m actually looking forward to the visit to the UU congregation tomorrow. Spoke to another mother at my kid’s nursery school, and she’s been attending their services on and off for a while. Really likes them, too.
Anyway, I digress…
You two would probably really get along!
|Founder of Jainism
“Non-violence and kindness to living beings is kindness to oneself. For
thereby one’s own self is saved from various kinds of sins and
resultant sufferings and is able to secure his own welfare.”
|My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|Link: The Religion Founder You Resemble Test written by Stinkbot|
Major religion musings here. You’ve been warned…
The UU service was definitely the right choice.
I’ve already determined a couple of things: First, the minister seems to share my recent enlightenment in regards to the Bible. I could be wrong – it will likely take more than a single sermon to know for sure – but it is interesting that right after yesterday’s disturbing experience with the funeral (and right on the heels of the one I endured in November), I can finally put a solid finger on the disturbing elements of taking Jesus as a personal Savior.
I talked with DH about this last night on the way home from the party. It took me pretty much all night to unwind from the experience. I almost didn’t go – digestive system out of whack (and going to a real food party there was a real chance I wouldn’t be able to enjoy the feast), sleep way off, out of sorts and very shaky in emotional stability. The sheer volume of loss this last six months finally settled in. It wasn’t just Ms. M. It was: BG, KT, MW, LC’s mom, assorted loved pets, and…and… That isn’t all. Thursday, one of the moms I’ve been seeing at the bus stop told me her 38 year old brother was on life support because he let pneumonia get out of hand. I hope she got to Florida in time.
I always watch the memorial segment of the Oscars, too. We lost a bunch of people then as well.
But the key feature of the list above is that with the exception of BG and LC’s mom, none of the rest were older than 48, and all of them left with little or no warning at all.
And what bugged me ever so much at the funeral yesterday, which bothered me at the prior service, and at the one for DH’s “cousin” S, wasn’t just the whole hell thing. It’s this, and it’s a lot more inflammatory for those who believe in Christianity: Jesus, whether or not he intended to be, has become an undying cult leader. It wasn’t enough to think that last night, but I’m not the only one who thinks this is the case. It’s amazing. Well over a billion followers.
How presumptuous: Nobody can make it to heaven except by following Jesus – literally – he has taken the role of the leader from this world to the next. Believing in God isn’t enough.
Obviously I need to pick up a Bible. I’ve needed to read the old testament for a very long time, because it is literature and it’s important, since so many people are guided by it. But I need to figure out if I’m just imagining this or I really am seeing it. And then I need to figure out how to reconcile this so that the next time I have to go to a funeral at a Christian church, I can sit through the service and not simply steam in my own digestive juices.
Interestingly, I’m listening to the story the minister quoted, in a sermon discussing sacrifice, Eid, and Abraham. I know why they’re showing this on PBS – obviously it’s because of Eid on Tuesday. But what I didn’t realize was how closely tied Muslim, Jewish and Christian faith was. And how far the others have been controverted to the purposes of the Bible. And there is nothing more controverted than the conversion of the Jewish belief that there is simply a better place to go after one dies, then the belief that only through Jesus can one actually get there after death.
Yeah. I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have time to go to the book and look it up. (Errands to run and all that.) I want to get this idea out of my head and onto “paper” before I lose the thread. Some time soon, though, I think I’m going to add another actual essay to the “Writings” page on my site.
To those of my friends who have gotten this far, and who believe, I’ve determined that I am not agnostic. There is a description for what I believe, but there is no appropriate label for who I believe in. God is as close as it comes. And by setting anything in the way of God, as a mouthpiece or humanization of that “deep magic”, it somehow cheapens for me the value of the belief itself.
I’m going to spend more time on this over the next year. If this year is any indication, there are going to be a lot more of these ordeals to be survived in the coming years and I need to prepare myself for the onslaught.
Just saw the BE EMPOWERED commercial on PBS – the one about the fish who decides the bowl isn’t enough. It finds a way to swim with the salmon instead. I think that’s me.
Time for bookkeeping. More soon…
You might look at some of the “mystical” Christian writings and the Sufis, who are the mystical sect of Islam. Mystical in this sense means seeking a direct experience with God. (Wikipedia article on Christian mysticism here) The Christians tend not to dwell on the whole “Christ as your personal savior” and “you must be SAVED” put focus on the “God in everyone” aspect, which is one of the central tenants of UU and Quakerism as well.
I tend to be more deist when you get right down to it. I believe that there is a higher power up there and he/she’s done a lot of cool things but we’re really cool too and shouldn’t use said higher power as a crutch. That and @#$! happens.
I’ve got a couple books on Christian mystics and Sufis if you want to borrow them sometime.
Yeah, maybe… When I have some more time and I’ve done the thing I really need to do – which is read the book itself, so I have a formal footing for my heresy… 😎
I’ve determined that I am not agnostic. There is a description for what I believe, but there is no appropriate label for who I believe in. God is as close as it comes.
Surely you’ve heard heard of “deism”?
Nope. Still too formal.
Checked Google under “define: deism”, and got this back (amongst others):
“Deism is a belief in God as revealed by nature and reason, not scripture and faith. Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. The Deist sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates an Intelligent Creator or First Cause. …”
Like I said, God is the wrong term. Deep magic is closer, but still not right. I don’t think any”one” set about making the universe happen, but that force which makes things happen (perpetual motion, lifeforce, whatever) has to have some sort of name in my head, and for that I suppose God is a useful term. Might as well be Doll or Foo or Whatever, except that folks have a clue about the meaning of the word God in relation to the universe.
Just my muddled interpretation. Like I said, I need to think a little more about this before I write something profoundly stupid…
Donning my Skunk Suit for this Garden Party…
As Alan Moore so succinctly put it:
“Existance[sic] is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them nor destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.”
Re: Donning my Skunk Suit for this Garden Party…
Thank you for that stunning visual of the reality that is what we ourselves do in the name of right.
And lest someone mistake my meaning, I agree with you on this.
Like I said, it isn’t called God. I’m a firm believer in conservation of energy, but that’s tough to describe in the metaphysical sense, when determining how we came to be. That we choose to do what we do with what we have is another, often sadder (though not always), story. And that some people need to be led like sheep is, in a way, sort of sad in and of itself.
I suppose it’s a search for ways to cope with existence, and why I’m ever so much less likely than someone who buys the whole “better place to be” thing to take my own life (or anyone else’s). It’s what we have here and now that matters most, not what’s coming afterwards. There’s a lot of folks who would do well to remember that in their daily lives.
Interestingly enough, there are even some Pentacostals who are having this aspect to their faith – reinterpreting, or perhaps interpreting for the first time, the idea of the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Would a loving God consign anyone who did not accept Jesus in that way as damned? Not all Christians think so.
Now I do believe in Christ as personal savior – but then, if I do that, I must accept that Christ will have different ways for each person. That’s the “personal” part.
Would a loving God consign anyone who did not accept Jesus in that way as damned? Not all Christians think so.
Interestingly enough, that’s almost an exact quote from the Reverend, and she came to roughly the same conclusion.
She, by the was, was Methodist before switching to UU.
the belief that only through Jesus can one actually get there after death.
I am very irked by the accepted translation of this. When Jesus was alive he (reportedly) said, “No one gets to the father except by me.” He then did this thing which supposedly allows sinners to go to Heaven. You’ll note by the weasel words that I don’t actually believe this, BUT…according to this story it sounds to me like what he meant was “I’m going to open that door” not “you have to follow me in order to get through it.” But I’m a baptist-raised ex-pagan Poohist, so what do I know :).
Ah-yup. All of which just goes to show that this stuff is WAY TOO open to interpretation to be taken as absolute *as written* in the book. Which I think is my biggest beef on the subject (and has been since high school, at least).
Yes. not only open to interpretation, but some interpretation is unavoidable. If the book says “blue” you may think of the sky on a clear, winter day and I may think of the ocean just before dawn. And we could both be wrong.
In my experience kindred spirits can be found in all faith traditions. One of the things I look for is a kind of openness. Open people admit that there is a lot they don’t know, much they can learn from others. Which leads to a tolerance for diversity.
Fanatics, of any belief system, have an answer for everything. And just one answer, at that.
But here’s a bit of antidote to that my-way-or-the-highway mentality:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”
That’s St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Can’t stand by everything the old coot said, but this one can help encourage tolerance.
Hope you find a good place to rest.
Lots of thoughts. In the opening words at our service, we say,
“Love is the doctrine of this church; the quest of truth is its sacrament,and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace, to seek knowledge in freedom, to serve humankind in fellowship, to the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the Divine. This is our great Covenant, one with another, and with our god.”
When I get caught up in god or goddess or no god or whatever, I really feel those words “the Divine.” Broad enough to be whatever I need it to be, and personal enough to carry me.
Someone else quoted the part about Jesus talking about being the way into his father’s house. I believe (and I’m not going to look it up, I’m too lazy to get off the couch) that right after this, Jesus also says something to the effect that there are many rooms in his father’s house.
There’s a fabulous book written by a UU minister called “Finding Your Religion.” The guy’s name is Scotty McLennan; he was the model for Rev. Scott Sloan in Doonesbury, and is just about as cool as the cartoon character. Rev. Scotty battled with just that question about whether you *have to* accept Jesus as your personal avatar before being saved; the minister with whom he was having a series of soul-searching debates at a crucial time in his life finally, in exasperation, told him, basically, you sound as looney as a UU–why don’t you go check them out? It’s a fun read and I highly recommend it for the soul-searching person. You can get it through amazon or through uua.org’s bookstore.
Glad your UU church worked out for you. Hope it continues to do so.
On a separate blog, a very VERY long time ago, I posted this exploration into the foundation of Christianity and Jesus.
As I have no desire whatsoever to link this blog to that one, I will occasionally reproduce the content from one into the other.
Link to this? Dandy. Steal it? I will come after you. Ask questions? By all means. Rant? You can’t imagine how fast I will block you.
March 25, 2008: Ok. So I think I need to further this discussion…
As I understand it, his basic teaching was that you could find the kingdom of heaven within yourself and to mistreat others was to mistreat yourself. People have misinterpreted what Jesus was saying:”If you believe what I believe, you’ll get there, too.” Instead they heard “Only through me.” Believe in Jesus and you’d be saved. It should have been “Believe in what Jesus is saying and you’ll save yourself.”
Not to start a major debate but Jesus very clearly said that he was the path to salvation. Now I’d argue that there are many paths but the Bible is pretty clear on the path of Jesus.
See, now, here’s where I have a problem.
Jesus was Jewish. The Jewish belief that you get to heaven on your own, by believing that’s where you’ll go, is something he taught. The trouble with the bible is that it was written hundreds of years after Jesus died. In Greek. Translated any number of times. It’s terribly hard for me to believe that what is written in the book is the exact thing Jesus said. After all, how many games of Telephone lead to an exact retelling of the original phrase.
Couple that with a change in languages (ancient Hebrew, the original Aramaic (not as ancient as the version in the original Old Testament) of the bible and then Greek, Latin, and finally English (King James), plus other modern languages), and you really can’t say for absolutely sure that what is written is exactly what Jesus said.
One version has the onus of a single individual as a representation of the only way to get to heaven, and the other indicates a philosophy that, if followed, will get you there.
I don’t personally think he said that he was the path to salvation. I really believe he said his way was the way to salvation. That’s two very different meanings muddied by millennia of individuals, many of whom had their own personal agendas to carry forward.
Remember: For both the Greeks and the Romans, very few humans made it to Mount Olympus to live with the Gods. The Jewish faith was vastly different: One God and a heaven to which all people had access; where it wasn’t necessary to have Priests intervene on their behalf and where they wouldn’t simply be consigned to the Afterworld (Hades).
It was a radical departure from what the vast majority of people believed then, and put the Priests on such shaky ground (who feared what would happen if enough people believed in Jesus’ version of the truth), that the threat was sufficient to have Jesus executed. They didn’t expect that their execution plan would backfire, but then it’s rare that people in power consider the power of the martyr. Have a look in the general direction of the Middle East (where all this theology developed) and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
My problem all along (and the root of many a debate in high school and beyond with some of my more fundamentalist Christian friends) has been that the Bible is an interpretation of history, much of it verbal and only later written down in a way that could be interpreted by present day speakers. And don’t even get me started on the Old Testament (Hebrew version or otherwise).
Wikipedia (sometimes questionable source that it is) provides an example of what I’m talking about here:
I note especially this comment about The Passion of the Christ:
“The 2004 film The Passion of the Christ is notable for its use of much dialogue in Aramaic only, specially reconstructed by a scholar, but not an Aramaic specialist, William Fulco. However, rather than basing his reconstruction on what is known of first-century Aramaic, he used the Aramaic of Daniel, fourth-century Syriac and Hebrew as the basis for his work. Modern Aramaic speakers found the language stilted and unfamiliar.”
Just think for a moment: You’re familiar with Shakespeare. It’s written in English, right? But how many of the words and phrases he uses mean the same thing as today? Consider how many footnotes you find in the modern texts, and then think about this: We’re talking about a period of time that’s not even 500 years ago. Think how much language has changed and then think about a period of time 2,008 years ago, and you can get a better idea of my basic problem with the Bible.
Drifting way back to January 7th and 8th, 2006, where this current spiritual wandering of mine started, I see a lot of books that were recommended to me then that I didn’t have time to pull down and read. Most notable amongst these is the Bible itself. But which one? King James? Gideon? T. Jefferson?
I refer back to that dubious but handy fountain of information:
The recent uncovering of the apocryphal Gospel of Judas calls into even larger question the validity and truth of what people have come to understand: That Judas was the epitome of a traitor and the foundation of all that is wrong with the Jews in history – a fitting example of why they must be exterminated. If, instead, he’s viewed as the key to taking Jesus’ message to the wider population (by sacrificing his leader and himself because he was asked to rather than simply because he’d lost faith in the lessons and the man), how then are we to know that he actually committed suicide. The Priests saw no benefit in a public execution, but would they be above a hanging that would look as though Judas was guilty and repentant? Suppose you consider the possibility that he didn’t hang himself? Can we know for sure, just because the Bible tells us he committed suicide? Who’s really saying that? It couldn’t have been Judas and only Judas would know for sure. The rest is heresay.
The first time I really investigated this topic, I was in my first year of college, taking a cultural anthropology course. Way before I considered theatre as a career, I was convinced that Anthropology was The Thing for me. One of the books we read, Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches had a different interpretation of Jesus and what he meant to the Jews.
I’m coming to realize, after over 20 years of additional experience since reading the book, that there might have been a grain of truth to the postulation of Jesus as a military figure whose inability to win freedom for the Jews proved that he was not the Messiah and therefore a target for death, but that this doesn’t take into consideration the things Jesus might have taught his followers as a Rabbi. I need to go back and reread this book with my additional experience, but not before I sit down to read the Bible itself. I’m tempted to read the Jefferson Bible, but I suspect that won’t get me an understanding of what the majority of Christians believe. A recommendation about the best version is welcome, though. I’m gathering that King James is the most widely used version today, but I can’t say for sure that it’s the best version.
I find it vastly interesting that at the same time I’m ruminating on this subject, scientists have located a Gamma Ray burst sufficiently bright to be seen by the naked eye. From the NASA web site:
Never before has anything so far away come even close to naked-eye visibility. The explosion was so far away that it took its light 7,500,000,000 (7.5 billion) years to reach Earth! In fact, the explosion took place so long ago that Earth had not yet come into existence.
I can’t reconcile the Bible as absolute truth with these sorts of things. The two don’t make sense to me. Either science is One. Big. Lie. or the Bible has it wrong on some level. It’s in my nature to fall on the side of science.
Now I can believe that a man named Jesus lived, taught people as a Rabbi, and died on the cross 2008 years ago, give or take a day. I simply can’t take as absolute truth most of what the Bible has to say, unless I can take it in context. There are simply too many contradictions to take it as a whole, and if not taken as a whole, then the whole document comes into question. And if you can’t take the gospel as gospel, then the book raises more questions than it answers.
This is what I believe. Your mileage may vary.
I do love, however, that the Gamma burst noted above happened within 24 hours of Arthur C. Clarke’s death. Makes for a neat juxtaposition. At any moment the monolith will visit us and everything will become clear.
Any day now.
Comments from way back then:
I think Jesus was an extremely wise man, and that he certainly had a deeper spiritual connection to earth and heart and things that matter than most people of his time and place. I also believe that he would be appalled at how many people have suffered and died, and at how many crimes have been committed, in his name.
The trouble with the bible is that it was written hundreds of years after Jesus died.
Actually, the earliest gospels were written around 65AD, about 30 or so years after Jesus’ death and when a lot of his original followers were still around. The oldest surviving copies are from around 200AD, a big difference between being written 200 years later. I wouldn’t consider it a perfect account of history but the message about Christ being the son of god and being the savior is consistent.
You mentioned the King James version to read. The original is a crap translation but the New King James keeps the original language but cleans up the translation considerably. I prefer the New American Standard myself. A fellow Quaker prefers to read several translations at once. He said that they might differ on little things but where they all agree is where you can be pretty sure that is what the original author intended.
About Jesus being a military figure, I doubt that completely. Rome had a nasty habit of making examples of the opposition. If Jesus was leading an anti-Rome movement, all of his followers would have been rounded up and crucified, not just Jesus.
The Jewish faith was vastly different: One God and a heaven to which all people had access; where it wasn’t necessary to have Priests intervene on their behalf and where they wouldn’t simply be consigned to the Afterworld (Hades).
All Jews had access to that god, not people in general. Despite the popularity of converting to Judiasm today, it wasn’t a religion into which you converted. Jews needed priests, hence the temples and the sacrificing. It wasn’t until after the Jewish rebellion in like 69AD when Rome destroyed all those temples that animal sacrifice and the pharases went away. That was the radical thing about Jesus – he was the one that said, “Hey, I’m the sacrifice. You don’t need the bulls any more.”
As for the comparison with Shakespere, while individual phrases have different meanings or have gone out of use, the overall characterization and plot of the plays is still there. Hamlet is still a prince of Denmark. Romeo and Juliette are still young lovers. MacBeth is still Scottish. Thus I find it hard to believe that even with translations and idioms, the central theme of Jesus being the son of god and a way to salvation is completely wrong.
Again, I don’t think that Jesus is the only way nor did he say that he was the ONLY way. But I think that he definitely is a way and said so himself.
(For the record, while I grew up in a fundamentalist church, I’m more deist these days as I can’t reconcile a “loving a forgiving” God condeming[sic] millions of people to death because they’ve done some honest soul searching and came up with a different answer than mainstream Christianity. I don’t believe that God is that petty about it.)
Um, all PEOPLE have access to G-d – Jews just have a specific path. You, as a non-Jew, have to find your own, as far as Judaism is concerned. I don’t know who told you what you believe, but s/he is dead wrong.
But if Jesus was Jewish, then he would have known that human sacrifice is one of the biggest non-nos in Judaism. We used to kill entire nations for that one.
There’s a pithy Dire Straits lyric: “Two men say they’re Jesus. One of them must be wrong.”
Yea. Like that. There’s a cacophany[sic] of voices out there. Who to listen to? There are a variety of Christian groups that would point to me and say that I’ve got it all wrong, and that I’ll likely burn in hell for it. Trouble is, if I sign up with any of them all the others will still condemn me. So you can’t win on those grounds. This is happening more and more even within my own denomination, heaven help us! My own brother-in-law has referred to those with the gall to disagree with him as “the apostate church.” Heh.
No, in the end we’re all left to our own devices. I suspect God wants it that way.
See, that’s the main reason why I like the folks in my congregation. The guy I was sitting next to on Sunday for the second service is a devout atheist, and he still got something good from the sermon. For us it’s far more about the community than the specific faith. Everyone has views and they might all be right. What I believe isn’t necessarily what you believe. Its that freedom to choose what you feel is right that’s so prized in UU faith.
As for me, I’m thoroughly enjoying this topic. Its rare to find a place where talking about religion is not taboo. I love this forum for just that reason.
For the best translations of the Bible (as opposed to The New Testament), your best choice would be an Artscroll version. There are some that have intralineal translations, so the translation is directly under the hebrew word(s) that are being translated.
The problem with that is that I believe the old testament even less than I do the new. Ironic, since I’m presently working on an opera that celebrates Noah’s ark…
As I’ve always said, the problem with conventional Christianity is that they’ve mistaken the messenger for the message.
I highly recommend the book “Misquoting Jesus” which is a great reference book of all the changes that scholars know got into the Bible along with when and how they got in. Some is translation error, some deliberate, and all of it is fascinating.
I’ve been meaning to pick that up, along with a copy of the Gospel of Judas. I think I need to make a book list out of this thread and make some real time to read the material.
One hole in your (&/or Xian) logic is that Jesus was NOT a threat to the priests. This is proven by the way the story has them disposing of him. If he were truly a threat, they could have simply tried/executed him on those grounds – thus destroying not only him, but his teaching. But he wasn’t, & they didn’t. If the story has any truth to it, it was that he was a threat to the Romans – who would never have executed anyone on behalf of a troublesome subjugated people – especially not Pilate, who had been sent to Jerusalem as a punishment. Rome used crucifixion for specific crimes – such as rebellion. But those writing the story had to throw blame from the Romans because they were the only realistic pool of converts for them, the Jews already having passed on the idea (& the circumstances of his supposed arrest/trial/etc. prove that the writers were completely unfamiliar w/Jewish law. Also, history has shown that we do not execute false messiahs – we’ve had them more times than just once).