arkadianriver |
| Shadowed by the canon |
06:27 pm |
In response to the ever-popular John Ch 3 that someone posted to my Harry Met Sally quote:
http://www.deadjournal.com/users/arkadianriver/3125.html?thread=3637#t3637
So to sum it up: Nicodemus, a big shot who worked his way up through the system, approaches this upstart named Jesus, probably trying to get him to say something blasphemous like, "I'm God," or something. Nicodemus starts off by saying, "You must be a teacher of God, because you do all these miraculous things." Jesus ignores the bait by going into this born again and windy spirit metaphor, which is basically, "Dude, if you don't believe God sent me to save you then you're going to die. Face it, I'm the only way. If you don't believe it, then there's something wrong with you, or you must be hiding something from God." Later on, John, a fairly well-known teacher, confirms what Jesus had said by saying that he feels like a best man at Jesus' wedding. It's Jesus' time now. "If y'all don't accept his proposal for marriage, then you can hang up any hope of seeing heaven." Again, "Deny Jesus' birth right to God and you die."
Umm.. That's love? If it's really true, okay, maybe. But if it's not true, then it sounds like a bunch of men playing power politics.
I especially like verse 19 and 20. So, if the light hurts your eyes then it's your fault? The reason you wear sunglasses is because you don't want people to see your eyes? Maybe. And, if so, is it because you think your eyes are evil and you are ashamed of them? That's one way of looking at it (the famous guilt trip way). But, maybe you hide them because others might be offended by them, even though you're fine with them just the way they are. Or, maybe you just like wearing sunglasses. What's the harm in that? I love the logic of these holiest of scriptures. How they try to force this beautiful complex world into a black and white, good and evil little system.
Suppose it were written, "thou shalt not smile." I could see reasons for it. When you smile, it distracts you from doing your work, and not only that, but it's contagious. No smiling allowed. If smiling were immoral, I'm sure you'd see lots of comedy clubs next door to strip clubs and bars on the shady side of town. Kids would be sneaking into Disney movies, which would be rated R or worse, and they'd run away from home to start laughing clubs.
Silly analogy, but my point is: Duh! If you call something evil in your society, then of course people aren't going to want to expose it when they do it, even if they don't think it's evil. They'd be blackballed by all the sheep who are either stiffs who don't like to smile, or who themselves are hiding their smile and are afraid.
Further, if Jesus claims to be the messiah and the only way to eternal life, without any attempt at diplomacy, then, duh, of course he's going to make waves and probably end up dead, since he as one man had less power than the establishment. Yeah, c'mon everyone, let's be more like Jesus, "baa, baa," let's leave all the power in the hands of the rich and be happy that we're poor. We'll get our riches after we're dead. heh. If that's not the best con in the world, I don't know what is.
No, today's monotheistic religions are simply man-made, psychological formulas for control. And, Christianity (a more hellenistic approach to Judaism) is one of the most well-crafted of all.
When controlling the masses, you can't please everyone. No matter what you lay down as law, some will be discontent. And as long as they can identify you as being the one in control, then they can always start an uprising against you. So how can you work around this problem? Well, what you do is write down all the ways that you want your society to behave, you claim that any behavior other than that is wrong. But, it's not wrong according to you, it's wrong according to a God.. the God who created them and can "offer" them eternal life. He's then the one who made the laws, not you. Ooh, nice trick, especially since psychologically, we all have had to face the fear of death at some point, usually as children when we first learn what it is. Simply pacify that fear in people with a promise that they won't have to face death if they believe in God (and honor his law, following the outlined acceptable behaviors, yada, yada). Death might "lose its sting," but its denial gives you the power you need.
But the people might say "I've never seen this God." So what you do is say that a whole bunch of other people did see him and can testify to it. But, of course, you have to kill him off and send him to heaven; otherwise, everyone will be looking for him to ask him questions and try to prove whether he really is God or not. Then you say stuff like, "Blessed is he who believes yet has not seen" so that instead of people feeling like a fool when they are questioned, they feel closer to God. And you say, "Doubt is of the devil." What you are doing is getting them, through this imaginary world of theirs, to govern themselves so you don't have to. And Christianity offers the idea of forgiveness and says, "You can't do anything right because you're born with at least one flaw--original sin of Adam. So, do your best, repent, and press on." It's a "co"-dependent relationship between someone with a low self-esteem and an imaginary enabling personality in their own heads. Give the Christian his weekly fix of Jesus and you can convince him to do anything, as long as you speak the language and remember to promise him God's blessing if he performs well.
It's the perfect scheme that has helped bring western civilization to the place of power that it has enjoyed to this day.
Constantine, worshipper of Apollo, must have known this when he and the leaders of the church canonized those 4 particular gospels, discounting as heresy the other 300 or so that were around at that time, having them all destroyed under threat of a painful death to any who possess them. Perhaps Constantine held the philosophy that a tame civilization for Artemis depends upon the power of her brother Apollo rising above the Dionysian. The dual nature of man, with spirit conquering flesh is not strictly a Judaic concept, but also a Hellenistic one. Constantine perhaps wisely stumbled upon the connection when it was his turn to rule the disparate Christian masses. And ruled we still are.
So what does this all mean? Do I hate civilization? No. But I wish we'd recognize that civilization is for mankind's benefit, not vice-versa. And, am I saying that Christianity was invented by a roman emperor? No. All I'm saying is that the bible is only as good as the men who wrote or selected the books to put in it. The new testament was written by men who lived in a time when all that they held dear, their centuries of Jewish tradition, was in upheaval and in risk of being destroyed. All of Judea, gone. They had motive to preserve their legends, validating them by fulfilling the prophecies. Second, Constantine was responsible for a huge unruly empire, with Christians believing a whole mess of different things. He needed some kind of order. Their motives were not necessarily to "enlighten" us as individuals.
Nevertheless, most of the writings are enlightening. But the authors were men, trying to do the best for their society. I'm not saying that they didn't follow an inner spiritual guide. Perhaps they did believe they heard things directly from God. But because they believed these things happened doesn't mean that they really did. When you hear voices and see visions today, you're called crazy. Paul might have been a saintly man, but he might have been crazy, too. Not that crazy people don't have as much access to God as anyone else does, but when you're listening to a crazy person's interpretation of reality, you have to take it for what it is: crazy!
Personally, I believe that all that is and that happens in this universe is connected. So everything means something to everything else--usually not directly or noticeably, but it's connected somehow in the vast matrix in which we live. I tend to find revelation in symbols. I'm sure it's not for everyone, but it's my way of connecting to spirit. A revelation, however mild or extreme, can occur in me when a series of experiences or insights are triggered or amplified by a symbol and the space and time in which the symbol is encountered. What? Yeah. It's very personal, but immense and beautiful. Anything and everything can be a symbol, depending on whether you're in a state to receive a revelation. Like I said, I feel it's all connected and potentially meaningful.
So, yes, I do feel that how the bible came to be in its present form holds some significance. But I have to interpret its meaning personally from my own experience. I cannot accept another's claim that it is the infallible word of god. If I did, I would not be true to myself. And if you cannot be true to yourself, then what is the point of truth? It just doesn't hold up to it's claim of infallibility to me (a topic for another day). That's a huge hint that it is of man, rather than of God. Sure, it might be of man trying to understand God, but hey.. isn't that what a whole slew of people are doing? Heck, maybe I should write a book based on my manic experiences and call it God's infallible word. It must have been from God because it seemed so real. No, that's precisely what I should not do. I can write about my experiences, sure, but it's only fair to let you read and interpret them within the context of your own life, and with what you know about me.
I guess it all comes down to understanding not that which is canonized, but who canonized it and why.
|
|
Comments:
| [Anonymous] |
| Aug. 20th, 2004 - 10:00 pm | | |
you had me a little worried there in the beginning of your screed, but you summed it all up quite well.
aj |
|
|
| [Anonymous] |
|
Very good | Aug. 23rd, 2004 - 10:57 am | | |
Awesome, actually. This codependency between the low-self esteeming individual and the imaginary enabler fascinates me. I also believe there's inspiration in religion, and though it's used for social control, I don't think it necessarily arises for it. Religion is an evolution within society, human psychological need its mysterious driver. I need to learn more, so I can better understand why the more I go to church, the less true value I see in it. (I enjoy it for reasons that have little to do with the supposed reason for the season)
- HL (linked at aj's) |
|
|
| [Anonymous] |
|
When ya gonna blog something? | Apr. 22nd, 2005 - 08:24 am | | |
Dude! I'm gonna have to take you off my blogroll if you don't say something soon.
;-)
aj |
|
| | | |
