Yeas and Nays

Yeas, Nays and an Awkward Pause.

       Ok, Ok, born again Evangelicals should really, really consider what they believe and begin to act accordingly. Along the way they also need to disregard dogmatic and baseless statements by opportunistic frauds like Joel Osteen, Franklin Graham and the (unbelievably!) “rehabilitated” Jim Bakker.

        The yeas and nays in the title refer to the proscriptive and prescriptive dictates in the Evangelicals’ high mythology, the Bible. It is indicative of the general nature of the earlier half, the Old Testament, especially the Torah, that most (not all, but the clear majority) of alleged spiritual directives from on high are of a prohibitive nature or, in parallel are mandated actions to be taken against the sins of others. Some are semi-neutral, like selling one’s children as slaves or slaughtering animals to gratify the God who has everything except, apparently, enough self-esteem to want all his “creations” (sheep, doves, etc.) to live long healthy lives and die of natural causes unless, by their death, others live by using them as food.

        The actual number of commandments - “The Law” – is in the neighborhood of 630 give or take a “Thou shalt not.” or two. Even the shorthand version, the Ten Commandments, allegedly collected by Moses while burning some weed although suspiciously semi-derivative of Hammurabi’s code (look it up), are 80 percent prohibitive. 

        But let’s leap ahead to the laws commanded by Yeshua Bar Yussef (Jesus is Romanized [Latin], not his given name). This Romanization is also responsible for essentially all of Christianity’s current tenets, after about 300 BCE, which stem from the efforts of others to create a power structure which benefited the clergy and extended that power to the state as it existed variously.   

        Assuming there was a Jesus (probably) -and assuming he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher like several others (likely), then the subject of the supernatural is irrelevant because what he is reported to have said of himself and directed his followers to do is in print and believed with great zeal by Evangelical Christians, who, having claimed it as divine, generally ignore much of it.

        To clarify my intro to the previous paragraph: The majority position amongst New Testament scholars, at least the ones who aren't ultra conservative Christians, is that he – Jesus - was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher of a kind that would have been reasonably common at the time. Regardless of that, let’s consider what Jesus, whoever or whatever he was, is reported said that was directive in nature.

         But first, as the commercials say, let’s make one point clear. If you append the name Christian to any statement of faith, the 630 or so Old Testament laws are superseded by just two: “Love the Lord thy God…etc., etc.,” and part B – “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This isn’t original, by the way, as I have pointed out variously to those who are convinced that Jesus originated the “golden rule.” Analogous versions of this appear in the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, 600 or more years before. Similarly, Socrates taught the concept. Would Jesus have heard it before? Probably. Regardless, of origin, he gave this as one of only two direct commandments, adding allegedly some more specific guidance in a sermon (the beatitudes).

        So, what? So, all the Evangelical railing about social ills which they ignore, all the militarism, all the Shaman induced (and very recent) anti-choice, anti-Gay, anti-immigrant, anti-you name it, cannot be, “Christian” if one truly claims to believe Jesus was who he is said have been. No wiggle room, no waivers. In fact, look really hard at the New Testament and you’ll find that when, on few occasions, Jesus abjured anything, it was wealth, power, inhumanity to one’s fellow man, and……. wait for it, rigid unfeeling adherence to those 630 “Thou shalt nots.”  

        Now look at the current sad state of Evangelical affairs in this nation. While Jesus’ sexuality is not addressed per se in the N.T. there are sidelong references which have been debated by many. More recently, scholars have agreed that Jesus was mute on the subject while refusing to address “The apostle that Jesus loved” or, the Nag Hammadi “Gospel of Mary Magdalen” which refers to Jesus kissing her on the mouth which Peter also mentions.  The issue of Jesus as a sexual being will never be resolved because the synoptics simply don’t address it, and everyone involved is dead.  Moreover, it’s irrelevant. Everything else Jesus is reputed to have said and done makes it clear that all were welcome, including prostitutes.

        What is truly sad and more disturbing are more modern attempts to condemn homosexuality, abortion and other late 20th century “hot button” topics for Far-Right Evangelicals. Many of these are people who are easily led, desperate for social significance their skill set doesn’t impart, and scared to death of being accountable for their own actions here and now in their daily lives.

        In the absence of any condemnatory word whatsoever from Jesus, a void which one with a brain might consider significant, their demagogic leaders cite the Apostle Paul instead. Claiming Paul’s alleged teachings as “scriptural” implies as well that what Paul said, was what Jesus would have said if he had spoken on the subject. So, we have Jesus, from all descriptions well adjusted, socially adaptive and at ease with men and women, He attends weddings, even brings the booze (yeah, right). Then years later, we have Paul, who rails at himself for “doing those things I should not do….” (wonder what that might have been?), who counsels against marriage, and is generally misogamistic and misogynistic. In what alternate universe would (should) he be considered authoritative on sex in any form? It is Paul’s initiative which began the continued reduction of women to secondary positions, if any, in the Church as he (Paul) created it.

        So what? So, the next time you hear anyone make objections on “religious grounds” about the above social issues, they’re not “Christians.” They might call themselves that, might even really believe it, but their actions are inconsistent with the one individual they refer to as source of their faith and whose name they adopt. They might better style themselves as “Paulicians” or better yet, maybe smile, shut the f**k up, and make the cake, already.