Who Would Jesus ...
Over at Shake's sandbox, we've been discussing the idiocy of Laura Bush's (and rightwing Christianity, in general) abstinence only gospel. In the comments, I submitted the following:
It generated some responses from other resident Shakers:
These guys are right on the money but that's the very point -- rightwing Christianity only ammounts to about 1/3rd of the total electorate. They can't do jack without suckering another 1/3rd of the electorate into their idiocy -- right and left of center moderates! So, of course, the wingers won't touch biblical genocide with a 100 foot pole; of course, they won't respond well to logic no matter how rational. Those moderates will ... if one were to drive a wedge between them and the Tali-Born Again because moderates at least retain the ability to think logically and apply critical analysis. Thus, if someone were to frame that question directly to the rightwing Christian fundies, those moderates will say, "Hmmm, this guy makes an interesting observation. What do you, Mr. Robertson, have to say in response?!?" Suddenly, the rightwingers don't have to answer to the person posing the original question -- they have to instead answer the moderates.
Who would Jesus waterboard?
Who would Jesus spy on without a warrant?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Oh, if those questions would've been asked sooner, we'd have either the Kerry Administration or Bush's impeachment proceedings right now.
However, Sarah disagreed with my initially question on a theological basis:
The flaw is the beauty of it, Sarah. From what you recall about Christian theology is going to be different from the recollections of someone else. The Bible -- this very book -- has been the direct cause of over 22,000 denominations of Christianity for a person to chose from. One book out of myriads. Stephen King, eat your heart out. Each of those 22,000 denominations have one thing in common -- accusing each other of developing their respective theology by "picking and choosing" which verses to believe and which ones to toss aside, and thus being "wrong".
Hoo, hoo, hoo, like they have a lot of room to talk. The hypocracy is astounding because you don't get 22,000 denonminations of anything without "picking and choosing" but the kicker is they can't accept others being different, thinking different, living their lives differently. Afterall, we all can read the Scriptures and can come to our own conclusions. Personally, I think I'm gonna "pick and choose", too and developing my own theology accordingly that (hopefully) will be much well versed in logic and common sense -- something I believe has been missing from mainstream Christian theology since about the 4th century. Hey, "Hooked on Semantics" worked for them -- it'll work for me!
NOTE: Blogger has been down all day, it's 5AM, and I'm sloshed -- time to ramble on!
I bring up legalism because Sarah states qualifiers for redemption: (1) baptized, (2) acceptance of God, (3) giving up sinful ways. Most likely because of the way she may been raised and whatnot. Legalism is something every denomination of Christianity is guilty of (and if they deny it, they're lying). Regarding these qualifers, I find no evidence of this actually being followed exactly to the letter by Jesus's many audiences throughout his 3 year ministry. In fact, I find the exact opposite -- quite a number of people actually botching it. When Jesus forgave one woman for her sins, He told her, "Go on and stop sinning." What did she do? Immediately sinned by blabbing about Jesus to the San Hedrin. Another time was when Jesus healed a blind man and told him, "Don't tell anyone I did this!" What did the blind man do? Ratted Jesus out to the San-Hedrin. Clearly a sin but that sin didn't cause him to revert to being a blind man again. Because of this, I'm led to beleive that the entire point of the Mosiac Law was to do two things: (1) teach us what sin is and (2) act as a roadmap to sin (yes, I'm aware Paul of Tarsis argues such a thing is "unthinkable" but we're getting to his "unthinkable" ass shortly).
After Jesus's death, we even witness the apostles themselves engage in sin -- Peter in the Book of Acts wouldn't eat with other Jews despite he himself being a Jew. Paul of Tarsis set him straight. Alas, too bad nobody was around to set Paul straight later when he practically told his protege Timothy, "Avoid girls, my boy! They gots cooties!"
I don't think Paul hated women. Quite the opposite: he looooooved women. Think about it: the proverbial thorn in Paul's side -- poontang addiction. Paul of Tarsis -- apostle by day; muff diver by night. I think he said that to Timothy because he himself was mollified by tits and ass. He couldn't control it, and definately couldn't afford to admit it (being an apostle and all). Advising Timothy and other churches to avoid giving equality to women despite Jesus's death shattering all that patriarchal bullshit from the Mosaic Law was, IMO, Paul's way of engaging in "projectionism" -- he erroneously (and sinfully) blamed women for being so sexy he couldn't keep his own dick out of them. He figured as long as they weren't around, everybody was better off.
Earth to Paul -- you're just as fallible as Pete. Quit pretending to know it all.
Also, the Book of Hebrews makes a compelling argument that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It argues in Chapters 9 and 10 that the blood of the lamb is "perfect" -- so perfect that it "sanctifies forever" those who are covered by it via Christ's sacficial death on the cross. I can't, however, find any Scripture that makes the same claim about mere water. Therefore, I must conclude water baptism has no bearing on salvation and it's only a public ritual -- nothing more, nothing less. Not only that, but if Jesus's blood is so perfect that it sanctifies people "forever", then I'm left to make the conclusion that once somebody is saved by the perfect blood of Jesus, they are always saved by the blood of Jesus. And if that is accurate then I believe the timing of sins are irrelevant. If the timing of sins are irrelevant, then everyone -- from creation to the "end of time" -- have been grafted into the blood of Jesus by proxy.
Why do I make that conclusion?
Because, if we're to believe the internal consistancy of Christian theology despite the differences and numbers of denominational flavors, this very redemptive plan by God (e.g. to become born into the world and die on the cross) was developed by Him before the foundation of world. Jesus had allready lived and died within God's own mind prior to creation itself, therefore, there's no logical reason for God not to include anyone born before Christ's physical birth into the blood of the lamb for total and irrevocable redemption since God isn't constrained by the element of time and He's not an unjust God.
Thus, I tend to think of the crufixion of Jesus as not strictly in the past tense but more in the aorist tense -- it's an event that happened in the past (our past) but the ripples of that event transcend time itself to include humanity from past, present, and future; from creation itself to the prophetic "end of time". Afterall, what kind of God that's not constrained by time would concoct a redemptive salvation plan that is constrained by time?!? Then again, the idea of a prophetic "end of time" is a contradiction of terms in this (or any) context. Bio-ethicist (and fellow Nascent Christian) Dr. Gerry Lower explains it better than I can:
With that, I'm gonna stop. Before these drunken musings need psychoanalysis, too.
What needs to happen is for someone to ask "true believers" like Laura Bush and the fundementalist crowd a real barn-burning question: "If you honestly believe that a fetus is an innocent life and aborting it is akin to murder, then would you mind taking a guess as to how many female citizens of Sodom were allready pregant at the time God said KER-BLAM?!?!"
According to The Bible, God said He would not destroy that city as long as ONE righteous and innocent person remained. Guess what happened when Lot and his wife blew that popsicle stand? Not one innocent motherfucker at all in the city and God went postal on it. Therefore, if there were any pregant women within that city at the time ....... holy shit, God is an abortionist!
Not only would their bullshit arguments about abortion and abstinence crumble by the sheer weight of that logic but so would thier other bullshit arguments, particularly regarding homosexuality. It'll all fall apart like fucking dominoes in front of a world audience.
Realizing that there could be no recovery from such public embarrassment, the Christian Right would either have to adopt a pro-condoms, pro-choice, human rights agenda tossing fakers and frauds like Falwell, Robertson, etc. (at best) or choose between their obsession with Mammon/Money or their obsession with the crotch (at worst).
Either way, the results are a total and irrevocable excommunication from the geopolitical arena entirely ... and I'll say an AMEN to that!
It generated some responses from other resident Shakers:
Karmakin: The anti-women crowd won't even answer the miscarriage question...they're not going to tackle biblical genocide with a 100 foot pole.
amish451: usually the fundies answer with .."thats old testament God" as if that makes some difference to them who is found jeezus.
Sarah in Chitown: Regardless, mind you, I'm not particularly hopeful on the ability of the fundamentalist and/or evangelical mindset to respond well to logic, no matter how rational.
These guys are right on the money but that's the very point -- rightwing Christianity only ammounts to about 1/3rd of the total electorate. They can't do jack without suckering another 1/3rd of the electorate into their idiocy -- right and left of center moderates! So, of course, the wingers won't touch biblical genocide with a 100 foot pole; of course, they won't respond well to logic no matter how rational. Those moderates will ... if one were to drive a wedge between them and the Tali-Born Again because moderates at least retain the ability to think logically and apply critical analysis. Thus, if someone were to frame that question directly to the rightwing Christian fundies, those moderates will say, "Hmmm, this guy makes an interesting observation. What do you, Mr. Robertson, have to say in response?!?" Suddenly, the rightwingers don't have to answer to the person posing the original question -- they have to instead answer the moderates.
Who would Jesus waterboard?
Who would Jesus spy on without a warrant?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Oh, if those questions would've been asked sooner, we'd have either the Kerry Administration or Bush's impeachment proceedings right now.
However, Sarah disagreed with my initially question on a theological basis:
It is a good argument, but with one flaw unfortunately. If I am remembering my christian mythology correctly, it wasn't til Jesus died on the cross for "our" sins did newborns, or even fetuses, be classified as 'innocent' as they were all tainted with 'original sin'. It was only once you were baptised, accepted God as your lord, and gave up your sinful ways that you were forgiven and clean.
The flaw is the beauty of it, Sarah. From what you recall about Christian theology is going to be different from the recollections of someone else. The Bible -- this very book -- has been the direct cause of over 22,000 denominations of Christianity for a person to chose from. One book out of myriads. Stephen King, eat your heart out. Each of those 22,000 denominations have one thing in common -- accusing each other of developing their respective theology by "picking and choosing" which verses to believe and which ones to toss aside, and thus being "wrong".
Hoo, hoo, hoo, like they have a lot of room to talk. The hypocracy is astounding because you don't get 22,000 denonminations of anything without "picking and choosing" but the kicker is they can't accept others being different, thinking different, living their lives differently. Afterall, we all can read the Scriptures and can come to our own conclusions. Personally, I think I'm gonna "pick and choose", too and developing my own theology accordingly that (hopefully) will be much well versed in logic and common sense -- something I believe has been missing from mainstream Christian theology since about the 4th century. Hey, "Hooked on Semantics" worked for them -- it'll work for me!
NOTE: Blogger has been down all day, it's 5AM, and I'm sloshed -- time to ramble on!
I bring up legalism because Sarah states qualifiers for redemption: (1) baptized, (2) acceptance of God, (3) giving up sinful ways. Most likely because of the way she may been raised and whatnot. Legalism is something every denomination of Christianity is guilty of (and if they deny it, they're lying). Regarding these qualifers, I find no evidence of this actually being followed exactly to the letter by Jesus's many audiences throughout his 3 year ministry. In fact, I find the exact opposite -- quite a number of people actually botching it. When Jesus forgave one woman for her sins, He told her, "Go on and stop sinning." What did she do? Immediately sinned by blabbing about Jesus to the San Hedrin. Another time was when Jesus healed a blind man and told him, "Don't tell anyone I did this!" What did the blind man do? Ratted Jesus out to the San-Hedrin. Clearly a sin but that sin didn't cause him to revert to being a blind man again. Because of this, I'm led to beleive that the entire point of the Mosiac Law was to do two things: (1) teach us what sin is and (2) act as a roadmap to sin (yes, I'm aware Paul of Tarsis argues such a thing is "unthinkable" but we're getting to his "unthinkable" ass shortly).
After Jesus's death, we even witness the apostles themselves engage in sin -- Peter in the Book of Acts wouldn't eat with other Jews despite he himself being a Jew. Paul of Tarsis set him straight. Alas, too bad nobody was around to set Paul straight later when he practically told his protege Timothy, "Avoid girls, my boy! They gots cooties!"
I don't think Paul hated women. Quite the opposite: he looooooved women. Think about it: the proverbial thorn in Paul's side -- poontang addiction. Paul of Tarsis -- apostle by day; muff diver by night. I think he said that to Timothy because he himself was mollified by tits and ass. He couldn't control it, and definately couldn't afford to admit it (being an apostle and all). Advising Timothy and other churches to avoid giving equality to women despite Jesus's death shattering all that patriarchal bullshit from the Mosaic Law was, IMO, Paul's way of engaging in "projectionism" -- he erroneously (and sinfully) blamed women for being so sexy he couldn't keep his own dick out of them. He figured as long as they weren't around, everybody was better off.
Earth to Paul -- you're just as fallible as Pete. Quit pretending to know it all.
Also, the Book of Hebrews makes a compelling argument that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It argues in Chapters 9 and 10 that the blood of the lamb is "perfect" -- so perfect that it "sanctifies forever" those who are covered by it via Christ's sacficial death on the cross. I can't, however, find any Scripture that makes the same claim about mere water. Therefore, I must conclude water baptism has no bearing on salvation and it's only a public ritual -- nothing more, nothing less. Not only that, but if Jesus's blood is so perfect that it sanctifies people "forever", then I'm left to make the conclusion that once somebody is saved by the perfect blood of Jesus, they are always saved by the blood of Jesus. And if that is accurate then I believe the timing of sins are irrelevant. If the timing of sins are irrelevant, then everyone -- from creation to the "end of time" -- have been grafted into the blood of Jesus by proxy.
Why do I make that conclusion?
Because, if we're to believe the internal consistancy of Christian theology despite the differences and numbers of denominational flavors, this very redemptive plan by God (e.g. to become born into the world and die on the cross) was developed by Him before the foundation of world. Jesus had allready lived and died within God's own mind prior to creation itself, therefore, there's no logical reason for God not to include anyone born before Christ's physical birth into the blood of the lamb for total and irrevocable redemption since God isn't constrained by the element of time and He's not an unjust God.
Thus, I tend to think of the crufixion of Jesus as not strictly in the past tense but more in the aorist tense -- it's an event that happened in the past (our past) but the ripples of that event transcend time itself to include humanity from past, present, and future; from creation itself to the prophetic "end of time". Afterall, what kind of God that's not constrained by time would concoct a redemptive salvation plan that is constrained by time?!? Then again, the idea of a prophetic "end of time" is a contradiction of terms in this (or any) context. Bio-ethicist (and fellow Nascent Christian) Dr. Gerry Lower explains it better than I can:
Are we "a nation in revolt against the modern world?" Or are we "a nation at the vanguard of the modern world?" Are we rapidly approaching the Biblical ideal of an "end of time," as the fundamentalist supporters of the Bush administration suppose? Or are we rapidly approaching a highly-networked global democracy honoring human rights, fairness and equality for all? The only adequate answer to these questions is "Yes."
The entire notion of an "end of time" is, in and of itself, an exercise in utter self-righteousness. Here we have a tiny handful of American fundamentalists (about one third of the U.S. electorate) who believe that they alone know that the entire world is coming to an end for all people (whether those people know about apocalyptic western religions or not). The notion of an "end of time" for all people and the world is an ideological stance that does not need sociopolitical analysis, it needs psychoanalysis.
With that, I'm gonna stop. Before these drunken musings need psychoanalysis, too.
posted by Sizemore at
5:26 AM
|
0 comment(s):
Post a comment
<< Home