This one is going to start by sounding rather obscure but in fact goes to the way in which we properly respond to the financiers who have plunged us into the economic chaos that we are now facing simply for their own greed. Last week I was reading an article by Jonathan Raban in 'The Guardian' (24th January edition) analysing the inaugural speech by Barack Obama and comparing it with such speeches in the past. As he showed the US Presidential inaugural speeches have rather become fossilised in form and actually despite being so restrained, Obama and his primary speechwriter Jon Favreau used the speech to attack the regime of George W. Bush and try to outline a more accepting liberal USA for the future. This element of Raban's article was interesting and I have no complaint about it. Where I had more issue was with his comments on the first inaugural speech of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.
Roosevelt was elected president four times, dying in 1945 shortly into his fourth term; these days US presidents are only permitted to serve two four-year terms, unless they come to office through the removal of the sitting president; Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson became president in 1963, was elected in his own right in 1964 and could have been re-elected in 1968 if he had chosen. The importance of Roosevelt's 1933 speech is that the world was in a similar position to today. The Wall Street Crash of October 1929 had helped precipitate the widespread economic collapse (though it had begun as early as 1927) especially in 1931 (when the Austrian Creditanstalt Bank collapsed and the British Labour Government also collapsed after only 2 years in office) and by 1933 was leading to the highest levels of unemployment that the world had seen. US unemployment reached 13 million people, 24.9% of the workforce in 1933; in Germany, 1933 being the year the Nazis came to power it was over 6 million unemployed, 34% of the workforce.
Thus, Roosevelt came to power as a liberal president following the conservative Herbert Hoover, at a time when the economic crisis was well underway. Thus, 1933 was not directly equivalent to 2009; we are probably in something more like 1930 now. However, both Roosevelt and Obama had to make a clear lead in terms of what they were going to do to tackle the economic problems. Obama had a lot less room for manoeuvre in what he could include in his speech though was challenging a wider range of issues that Roosevelt (for example, recent US foreign and human rights policy, as well as the economic crisis). Raban is right that Roosevelt's speech was more ground-breaking and memorable, but interestingly he also feels that it was anti-Semitic. I think Raban's analysis is lazy (something which seems rather too prevalent in 'The Guardian' newspaper recently, note my critique of John Cartwright's piece on the 20th July plot last month) and to some degree by labelling Roosevelt as having anti-Semitic tendencies (even if these inadvertent) in his speech, he undermines what attacks we might make on the plutocrats of today using Roosevelt's language.
The element of the 1933 speech which attracts Raban's criticism is the following passage. I quote more of it than Raban did/was able to:
"... Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. ..."
Now Raban feels that reference to moneychangers in the temple, taking from the incident in the Bible (Gospel of St. Matthew 21:12; Gospel of St. Mark 11:15) in which Jesus goes into the 'Temple of God' and threw out 'all that bought and sold in the temple', particularly the moneychangers and those selling doves/pigeons. The assumption of course is that the traders in the temple were Jews but neither writer suggests that this is the case. It is quite possible that a mix of people were trading in the temple, ironically in a way medieval churches in the western world were often used centuries later. Added to this, of course, at the time Jesus was breaking up this trade he was not a Christian, but a Jew. No-one was a Christian as we would define it, while Jesus was alive because what we define as Christianity was only established as a result of Jesus's death.
The central element of Christianity is Jesus's death and resurrection, so without that having happened, you could not have Christians. Thus, Jesus's actions were not someone of a different faith acting against Jews, they were the actions of a Jew acting against other people, some or many of whom were also Jews. You have to also contextualise this action in terms of 'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s' (words from Gospel of St. Mark) which is not long after the temple incident being covered in Gospel of St. Matthew 22:21; St. Mark 12:13-17 and St. Luke 20-26. Though there is clearly discussion about what Jesus is advocating, it does seem to suggest that the holy and the profane renderings should be kept in different contexts. Jesus has not objection to their being money changers, he just does not want them (or dove/pigeon sellers) in a place which is supposed to be about the spiritual not the mundane. Like Jesus, Roosevelt argues he is seeking to 'restore the temple to its ancient truths', how can this be anti-Semitic, as it is advocating the status quo ante rather than destruction of that setting.
Raban also feels that the reference to the Book of Proverbs in Roosevelt's statement '[t]hey have no vision' (in the Hebrew text it is 29:18) is an additional element of anti-Semitism. I accept that the Book of Proverbs unlike many elements of the Old Testament does not have a perspective on things which is Jewish-centred unlike many of the other books, but the acceptance of it in the Old Testament does not suggest that there is Jewish hostility to this book nor that it is anti-Semitic in nature; it is simply that it draws on a wider range of perspectives and traditions from the Middle East of the era and as scholars note demonstrates the interaction between the Jews and other peoples notably the Greeks and the inter-change of ideas rather than any attempt to suppress them. The Book of Proverbs is not out of step with other late and Wisdom books of the Old Testament.
Thus, I find it difficult to accept Raban's assertion that Roosevelt's speech was even nodding towards anti-Semitism, because the source material was not anti-Semitic. I know presidents are sometimes misguided by their speechwriters, but even Raban has to admit, that Roosevelt's speechwriter was Raymond Moley not a noted anti-Semite and the closest Raban can find is Father Coughlin, a supporter of Roosevelt in 1932 who soon stopped supporting him when the New Deal was introduced. There is no evidence that Coughlin had any input into any of Roosevelt's speeches. Raban seems surprised that Roosevelt was seemingly spouting anti-Semitic statements and says that '[i]t's a puzzle' especially given the fact that he had Jewish friends and appointed Jews to his Cabinet and the Surpreme Court, noting names such as Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Abe Fortas and Louis Brandels.
The only other explanation he can find for Roosevelt's seeming abberation in this speech is that 'genteel antisemitism was so routine that it passed unnoticed'. This could only be stated by someone with no idea of the world of 1933. Roosevelt was a far from stupid, short-sighted or naive man, he was clearly aware of the global tensions. The Nazis attitudes to anti-Semitism were well known; refugees from anti-Semitism in Germany as from Russia thirty years earlier, were already coming to the USA. In a speech as important as his first inaugural, Roosevelt did nothing without great care. Speeches in the 1930s when rallies and oration were still a core part of the political process were more examined than even today in our sound bite world. Raban confuses himself by seeing anti-Semitism in Biblical texts when it is not there. He undermines his own argument so much that it seems pointless even making it. Both he and his editor needed to think through what was being suggested before sending it to print. Such feeble analysis wastes time in what was otherwise a useful article.
Roosevelt and Moley were clever in using these references and this is an important element to note. Roosevelt used the rhetoric that would be familiar to millions of Americans. Importantly he charged the bankers not with incompetence but with immorality and that is a vital aspect that we must revive now. Roosevelt is right that the bankers had 'no vision' because they looked no wider than their personal bank balances and consequently 'the people perish'. The importance of this for what Roosevelt set out to do in the next few years was that he was arguing that these steps were not necessary simply from an economic or political ground but from a moral ground. In this way he is trying to be as bipartisan as possible as whilst Republicans might baulk at what they saw as Socialist or proto-Keynesian economics, it was harder to turn their backs on something which was a moral campaign in the interests of those who were not the 'self-seekers' but cared for 'civilization'. Roosevelt notes even among the capitalists it is the 'unscrupulous' and those with 'stubbornness' and 'incompetence' who he is taking to task, rather than seeking to overthrow capitalism as a whole. Raban has conjured up a fantasy of Roosevelt spouting 'a lightly coded message about a conspiracy of Jewish bankers' when it is nothing of the kind. It is an attack on all 'unscrupulous' bankers whichever faith they followed.
I acknowledge that some of those seeking the end or modification of capitalism in the late 19th century and early 20th century could fall into the danger of anti-Semitism, the so-called 'Socialism of Fools'. However, partly this was because genuine right-wing anti-Semites, who generally supported the reign of the rich, used 'plutocrat' as short-hand for Jew. However, the term is far broader than that and in fact in any country of the western world, the percentage of plutocrats who were also Jewish was always a small minority; Christian plutocrats always heavily out-numbered them. Thus, when we attack plutocrats today, no-one should accuse us of being anti-Islamic because the largest shareholder of Woolworths in the UK was Iranian or anti-Hindu because the owners of Corus and Jaguar Cars are Indian.
Plutocrats come in all shapes, sizes, ethnicities and religions. They are wrong and as in 1929 they, financiers rather than manufacturers in particular, have plunged the world into economic chaos because they worship no god except greed. Roosevelt was right to draw attention to the fact that when greed is unfettered and crushes so many ordinary people for the sake of piling wealth on wealth for a limited number of already wealthy people, then it is evil. It needs to be challenged in the way Jesus challenged it and to have a better society we need in Jesus's view spiritual values; in Roosevelt's view 'social values more noble than mere monetary profit'. More of us need to come forward and say the world has suffered because immoral greed was not checked. This is not anti-Jewish/Christian/Hindu/Islamic it is anti-evil.
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Thursday, 13 November 2008
The Christian Heresy I Feel Makes Sense
Despite growing up in a mildly Christian country (the UK) where people tend to take on the trappings of religion and increasingly use it as a basis to be self-righteous and condemn others, religion never appealed to me. Rationally, also I could see no sense of it. I could deal with the possibility of a supreme being, but all the other trappings which came with the worship of God seemed simply human constructs, again to encourage segregation. Also I have trouble with this concept of 'worship'. If a being is supreme, why does it need to be constantly reminded of that fact. Surely worship actually wastes time and distracts from doing what the being wants really us to do? Yet for church organisations, worship is the prime activity.
Having studied the breakaway of the Protestants from the Catholic Church in the 16th century I noted that whereas the Catholics had said you got to Heaven both through doing good works and having faith in God, the Protestants said that you only needed to have faith in God to get to Heaven, you did not have to put in any good work. I felt they had got this the wrong way round, and actually doing good works was the important element and actually demonstrates that you had faith in God. I could not go with Catholicism because it had far too many of the irrational trappings such as saintly intercession and the general pomp and circumstance that the Protestants were against. In addition, I could not accept its attitudes on contraception or abortion for the World we currently live in. So I suppose I felt I was outside the two main strands of Christianity around me.
From a humanist perspective I could see good elements of Christianity and having looked at history I recognised that whilst Christianity and Islam formed the basis of many bloody and cruel conflicts, at times they also restrained excessive behaviour especially in terms of the vulnerable. I think we should be good to other people because that is what being human should be about, but I recognise that the majority of people need something like the threat of eternal damnation to encourage them to moderate their behaviour towards other people especially those they can easily exploit. Increasingly I felt attracted to Pagan approaches to the cosmos, because at least these seem to fit in with how it functions and Pagans do not these days start major wars or seek to categorise and so exclude other people. In contrast there seemed to be so many sub-sets of Christianity and even within a small organisation like the Church of England, even individual churches (as in a group of people going to a single building) seemed to conflict with other churches of the same denomination.
Now, my opinions have shifted in recent years. Analysing it I think this is due to a number of causes. One is that I am ageing and coming closer to when I die as my life expectancy now is about 10-15 years. I do not feel fearful of eternal damnation or consider going to Heaven, but perhaps it is simply that as you age you reflect more on your own life and how it fits into the broader pattern of humanity. Other factors have also contributed, such as 'The Da Vinci Code' movie. I know people saw this as irreligious, but as I have noted here before it actually got me thinking about Jesus as a man rather than something divine. I am convinced he was married and that he lived a normal life for most of the time. I think he was supposed to supply the catering or at least the wine for one of his brother's weddings. That made him seem much closer to me in my outlook. I think churches are on the wrong track when they portray Jesus as somehow super-human, far removed from us mere mortals. How can we ever aspire to be anything close to that? I am never going to be semi-divine, not even one tenth divine, so Jesus is always going to be very far from my existence. If Jesus was an ordinary man, then that is very different. As an ordinary man, he demonstrates things that I myself could achieve. I can do good works, help people, make sacrifices and these things could win me a place in Heaven, because I would be putting myself to the ultimate test which is assisting humanity as a whole.
Now, I was encouraged to reflect on Jesus's humanity by playing the 'Barbarian Invasion' expansion to the computer game, 'Rome Total War'. This might seem a very peculiar source of religious reflection, but bear with me. The expansion starts in the 4th century CE at a time when a lot of aspects of what we see as Christianity in western and eastern Europe were being defined and a lot of things that had been put forward as being part of Christian canon were thrown out at various councils and became known as heresies. These things which were thrown out such as the Gospel of St. Philip and the perception of Jesus as being more human than divine (though the dispute on this is what still keeps the Catholic and Orthodox churches apart) was also pushed aside and as is highlighted in the 'The Da Vinci Code' one day Jesus was human and the next day divine. This was not decided by Jesus but policy-makers four cecnturies later. In 'Barbarian Invasion', various characters you encounter subscribe to different Christian 'heresie' that normally you do not hear much about. So I was attracted to what has been written out of mainstream Christianity. The three I would point to are the Arian Heresy. This went against the concept of Trinity, that Jesus, as the Son, is an eternal element of God, rather it sees him as distinct. Furthermore there is the Nestorian Heresy that Jesus had a purely human element as well as an element which came from God, but that these are distinct. When Jesus was on Earth he was a man. Now to me this makes sense. What is the point of sending down a part of God to show humans how to live, it is much more effective to charge a man with doing that. People emphasise the very ordinary nature of Jesus, who like so many people suffered upheaval and persecution, arrest on the grounds of conscience and execution, things that millions have been through. Surely this is a better illustration to humans of how to behave with humanity, dignity and courage than having a super-human who can opt out of the hazards of life?
Interestingly, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 10, Jesus says he calls God his father, but feels that all men should do that. He quotes Psalm 82 (Psalm 81 in Catholic Bibles) as reinforcing this view. This suggests that at the time John was assembling his gospel, which seems to have been around 90CE, that it was being stated that Jesus viewed everyone as a 'child of God' and that he was unexceptional in that. Nowhere do I see Jesus marking himself out in the Bible as being divine, though many people seem to argue that these days. Talking of the Gospels, it is interesting how the date of their authorship has been pushed back. When I was at school we were taught that the New Testament was written 80-200 years after Jesus's execution. However, now popularly you see statements that it was started in 45 CE, only 10-12 years after Jesus's death. Previously the different gospels were supposedly written anonymously and given the different names of the supposed authors, even though they state that they were written by apostles close to Jesus. Many people believe now that the gospels were written by actual apostles of Jesus, but there is evidence that they were only appended these designations later. The Gospel of Mark was written around 64 CE, possibly in Syria rather than Palestine, and seems to have drawn some of its information from relatives of the apostles. It seems the Gospel of Matthew was written sometime after 80 CE by a wealthy Jew, showing adherence to Jewish law and aware of the theological debates of that decade rather than earlier. The Gospel of Luke was probably also written late in the 1st Century CE and used Mark's gospel for chronology. Despite people now saying that these were written by apostles alive at the time of Jesus's life and noted down soon after, in fact what we read is more like an account of events in a location with no modern media that occurred in the 1960s compared to today.
Another heresy which attracte my attention was the Pelagian Heresy which argues that individuals choose whether they make their way to redemption and into Heaven without necessarily the input from God. In its view Adam set a bad example to humanity and Jesus a good example. Humans take entire responsibility for their own behaviour whether it is good or sinful, they cannot blame divine forces. Of course God still judges at the end of the person's life, but there is not intervention by God in the process up until then. In addition, everyone starts life with a clean slate, there is no original sin, it is up to you if you are going to be sinful or not. To some degree this is the basis on which most societies view and judge crime. Only individuals of 'diminished responsibility', i.e. deemed not to be in a position to distinguish properly what is good or sinful, if even temporarily, are viewed as exempt from this. In combining Nestorian and Pelagian heresies, I feel you actually have a perception of the role of Jesus which is far more appropriate for guiding human development than mixing it all up with the super-human elements.
Interestingly, of course, Jesus appears in Islam. He is not the son of God (no more, than we are all in fact sons and daughters of God having been created by Him), he is a prophet. In Victorian times, Westerners called Islam, Mohammedism after the leading prophet, Mohammed. Now if we see Jesus as not being a divine being at all, just the leading proponent of a set of principles that lead us to lead a life that is welcomed by God, then on this basis, Christianity is the correct term for what we would be following.
Thus, I suggest that people consider this 'heresy'. Jesus was a man who existed. He came from an ordinary background (though as the Bible makes clear from the Nativity onwards, not as poor as some people make out) and he was filled with a desire to show and instruct people how they can live together in a way that minimises the cruelty and suffering in the World. Naturally this mode of behaviour is one that God approves of. However, God's involvement with Jesus was no greater than rewarding him for the life he lived by giving him a place in Heaven at the time of his death. Jesus was a son of God just as every man on the planet is a son of God and every woman, one of his daughters, but he had no divine elements in him. As such, all of us could aspire to live and behave in the way Jesus did, as fits with the societies we now live in. If we do so then we will achieve a place in Heaven. However, it is up to us to decide how we are going to behave. If we choose to sin, then we suffer. 'The wages of sin are death' and this might be physical death, but even before that it is likely to be spiritual and intellectual death. A sinful life is an empty life, and reward for behaving in a good way is a full life, now and for ever more, that is what humans are here to experience.
A Christian friend of mine was surprised that I felt more belief in Jesus the more human I perceived him. This is in contrast really to the approach adopted by churches over the past 1700 years to emphasise his exceptionality and his super-human nature. This lifts Jesus farther and farther away from us and so makes his message seem inapplicable to us who are just simple humans. Bring Jesus back to humanity and hopefully humanity will be able to behave in a more humane way.
Having studied the breakaway of the Protestants from the Catholic Church in the 16th century I noted that whereas the Catholics had said you got to Heaven both through doing good works and having faith in God, the Protestants said that you only needed to have faith in God to get to Heaven, you did not have to put in any good work. I felt they had got this the wrong way round, and actually doing good works was the important element and actually demonstrates that you had faith in God. I could not go with Catholicism because it had far too many of the irrational trappings such as saintly intercession and the general pomp and circumstance that the Protestants were against. In addition, I could not accept its attitudes on contraception or abortion for the World we currently live in. So I suppose I felt I was outside the two main strands of Christianity around me.
From a humanist perspective I could see good elements of Christianity and having looked at history I recognised that whilst Christianity and Islam formed the basis of many bloody and cruel conflicts, at times they also restrained excessive behaviour especially in terms of the vulnerable. I think we should be good to other people because that is what being human should be about, but I recognise that the majority of people need something like the threat of eternal damnation to encourage them to moderate their behaviour towards other people especially those they can easily exploit. Increasingly I felt attracted to Pagan approaches to the cosmos, because at least these seem to fit in with how it functions and Pagans do not these days start major wars or seek to categorise and so exclude other people. In contrast there seemed to be so many sub-sets of Christianity and even within a small organisation like the Church of England, even individual churches (as in a group of people going to a single building) seemed to conflict with other churches of the same denomination.
Now, my opinions have shifted in recent years. Analysing it I think this is due to a number of causes. One is that I am ageing and coming closer to when I die as my life expectancy now is about 10-15 years. I do not feel fearful of eternal damnation or consider going to Heaven, but perhaps it is simply that as you age you reflect more on your own life and how it fits into the broader pattern of humanity. Other factors have also contributed, such as 'The Da Vinci Code' movie. I know people saw this as irreligious, but as I have noted here before it actually got me thinking about Jesus as a man rather than something divine. I am convinced he was married and that he lived a normal life for most of the time. I think he was supposed to supply the catering or at least the wine for one of his brother's weddings. That made him seem much closer to me in my outlook. I think churches are on the wrong track when they portray Jesus as somehow super-human, far removed from us mere mortals. How can we ever aspire to be anything close to that? I am never going to be semi-divine, not even one tenth divine, so Jesus is always going to be very far from my existence. If Jesus was an ordinary man, then that is very different. As an ordinary man, he demonstrates things that I myself could achieve. I can do good works, help people, make sacrifices and these things could win me a place in Heaven, because I would be putting myself to the ultimate test which is assisting humanity as a whole.
Now, I was encouraged to reflect on Jesus's humanity by playing the 'Barbarian Invasion' expansion to the computer game, 'Rome Total War'. This might seem a very peculiar source of religious reflection, but bear with me. The expansion starts in the 4th century CE at a time when a lot of aspects of what we see as Christianity in western and eastern Europe were being defined and a lot of things that had been put forward as being part of Christian canon were thrown out at various councils and became known as heresies. These things which were thrown out such as the Gospel of St. Philip and the perception of Jesus as being more human than divine (though the dispute on this is what still keeps the Catholic and Orthodox churches apart) was also pushed aside and as is highlighted in the 'The Da Vinci Code' one day Jesus was human and the next day divine. This was not decided by Jesus but policy-makers four cecnturies later. In 'Barbarian Invasion', various characters you encounter subscribe to different Christian 'heresie' that normally you do not hear much about. So I was attracted to what has been written out of mainstream Christianity. The three I would point to are the Arian Heresy. This went against the concept of Trinity, that Jesus, as the Son, is an eternal element of God, rather it sees him as distinct. Furthermore there is the Nestorian Heresy that Jesus had a purely human element as well as an element which came from God, but that these are distinct. When Jesus was on Earth he was a man. Now to me this makes sense. What is the point of sending down a part of God to show humans how to live, it is much more effective to charge a man with doing that. People emphasise the very ordinary nature of Jesus, who like so many people suffered upheaval and persecution, arrest on the grounds of conscience and execution, things that millions have been through. Surely this is a better illustration to humans of how to behave with humanity, dignity and courage than having a super-human who can opt out of the hazards of life?
Interestingly, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 10, Jesus says he calls God his father, but feels that all men should do that. He quotes Psalm 82 (Psalm 81 in Catholic Bibles) as reinforcing this view. This suggests that at the time John was assembling his gospel, which seems to have been around 90CE, that it was being stated that Jesus viewed everyone as a 'child of God' and that he was unexceptional in that. Nowhere do I see Jesus marking himself out in the Bible as being divine, though many people seem to argue that these days. Talking of the Gospels, it is interesting how the date of their authorship has been pushed back. When I was at school we were taught that the New Testament was written 80-200 years after Jesus's execution. However, now popularly you see statements that it was started in 45 CE, only 10-12 years after Jesus's death. Previously the different gospels were supposedly written anonymously and given the different names of the supposed authors, even though they state that they were written by apostles close to Jesus. Many people believe now that the gospels were written by actual apostles of Jesus, but there is evidence that they were only appended these designations later. The Gospel of Mark was written around 64 CE, possibly in Syria rather than Palestine, and seems to have drawn some of its information from relatives of the apostles. It seems the Gospel of Matthew was written sometime after 80 CE by a wealthy Jew, showing adherence to Jewish law and aware of the theological debates of that decade rather than earlier. The Gospel of Luke was probably also written late in the 1st Century CE and used Mark's gospel for chronology. Despite people now saying that these were written by apostles alive at the time of Jesus's life and noted down soon after, in fact what we read is more like an account of events in a location with no modern media that occurred in the 1960s compared to today.
Another heresy which attracte my attention was the Pelagian Heresy which argues that individuals choose whether they make their way to redemption and into Heaven without necessarily the input from God. In its view Adam set a bad example to humanity and Jesus a good example. Humans take entire responsibility for their own behaviour whether it is good or sinful, they cannot blame divine forces. Of course God still judges at the end of the person's life, but there is not intervention by God in the process up until then. In addition, everyone starts life with a clean slate, there is no original sin, it is up to you if you are going to be sinful or not. To some degree this is the basis on which most societies view and judge crime. Only individuals of 'diminished responsibility', i.e. deemed not to be in a position to distinguish properly what is good or sinful, if even temporarily, are viewed as exempt from this. In combining Nestorian and Pelagian heresies, I feel you actually have a perception of the role of Jesus which is far more appropriate for guiding human development than mixing it all up with the super-human elements.
Interestingly, of course, Jesus appears in Islam. He is not the son of God (no more, than we are all in fact sons and daughters of God having been created by Him), he is a prophet. In Victorian times, Westerners called Islam, Mohammedism after the leading prophet, Mohammed. Now if we see Jesus as not being a divine being at all, just the leading proponent of a set of principles that lead us to lead a life that is welcomed by God, then on this basis, Christianity is the correct term for what we would be following.
Thus, I suggest that people consider this 'heresy'. Jesus was a man who existed. He came from an ordinary background (though as the Bible makes clear from the Nativity onwards, not as poor as some people make out) and he was filled with a desire to show and instruct people how they can live together in a way that minimises the cruelty and suffering in the World. Naturally this mode of behaviour is one that God approves of. However, God's involvement with Jesus was no greater than rewarding him for the life he lived by giving him a place in Heaven at the time of his death. Jesus was a son of God just as every man on the planet is a son of God and every woman, one of his daughters, but he had no divine elements in him. As such, all of us could aspire to live and behave in the way Jesus did, as fits with the societies we now live in. If we do so then we will achieve a place in Heaven. However, it is up to us to decide how we are going to behave. If we choose to sin, then we suffer. 'The wages of sin are death' and this might be physical death, but even before that it is likely to be spiritual and intellectual death. A sinful life is an empty life, and reward for behaving in a good way is a full life, now and for ever more, that is what humans are here to experience.
A Christian friend of mine was surprised that I felt more belief in Jesus the more human I perceived him. This is in contrast really to the approach adopted by churches over the past 1700 years to emphasise his exceptionality and his super-human nature. This lifts Jesus farther and farther away from us and so makes his message seem inapplicable to us who are just simple humans. Bring Jesus back to humanity and hopefully humanity will be able to behave in a more humane way.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Two Pop Songs That Annoy Me Due to One Lyric in Each
Hearing two particular pop songs two days ago, very close to each other while driving in southern England reminded me how much they irk me. I had forgotten about both of them. The reason why each of them irritates me differs greatly but they both riled me and hearing them so soon one after the other led me to turn my radio off. Let me explain. The two songs were 'One of Us' by Joan Osborne (1995) and 'Little Red Corvette' by Prince (1983).
Now, I imagine the Osborne song was quite controversial because it likens God to a slob. It is also pretty dreary anyway. Neither of these things are what irritate me. It is the lines 'seeing meant that you had to believe in things like Heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets?'. Of course meeting God does not mean you have to believe in any of those other things. One may accept that God can only live in Heaven, but people were believing in God before Jesus even turned up. Muslims believe in God and accept Jesus as one of the prophets but not God's son, so they believe in him but not the way Osborne implies it. Jews also believe in God but most of them do not believe Jesus was his son either, though they accept he was alive. As for the saints many Protestants do not believe in them or that they were anything more special than good people. Few people have much problem with the prophets. However, Osborne's implication is that you have to accept this whole, pretty much Roman Catholic package or nothing at all. This is reinforced by the final line about ''cept for the Pope in Rome'. That both implies that the Pope has a particular connection to God lacking for other Christian leaders and he is the only one who tries to get in touch with God. Of course millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims communicate with God daily, the Pope certainly has no monopoly on this. I have no problem with Roman Catholics, but I was irritated by this song which raised the question of meeting God in such a one-dimensional way, assuming all the listeners are Roman Catholic (even though the USA where Osborne is from is predominantly Protestant) and these issues could not be addressed by people of other denominations or by non-Christians.
The lyrics:
If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
Chorus:
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like Heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
Chorus
Back up to Heaven all alone
No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome
From one extreme to the other. I have no problem with 'Little Red Corvette' being an analogy for a woman's genitals, whether it is her vulva, clitoris or whatever. Likening cars and driving them to sexual activity is fine. There are also horse racing analogies too. The story of the song is interesting about a man feeling uncertain about having sexual relations with a clearly promiscuous woman who flaunts how many sexual partners she has had and is even taunting of the narrator 'Baby have you got enough gas?'. Given Prince's very sexual identity it is interesting that this song which is credited with breaking him through into the big time is about a man plagued with uncertainty in a sexual situation and about a woman who is clearly far more confident, assertive, even in this context. The narrator is warning the woman, not so much about the dangers of risky sex, it is clear she uses condoms (Trojans) so this is not like 'Sign o' the Times' (1987) with 'a big disease with a little name', it seems to be more a warning about the emotional impact of continued promiscuity. Anyway, all that aside the one line in this song which makes me want to vomit is 'you had a pocket full of horses, Trojan, and some of them used'. Now what woman even a promiscuous one carries around used condoms? If any of us encountered a woman like that you would have major doubts about her. What was she doing, keeping them as trophies? She already has photographs of her conquests. Is she trying to collect sperm samples? Clearly she does not want to get pregnant otherwise she would get her sexual partners to use condoms. This woman is clearly seriously screwed up. The main thing it reminded me of was an elderly gay man I encountered in East London in the late 1990s who used to go around Victoria Park collecting used condoms apparently for some vicarious pleasure at this evidence of sex because his days of such activity seemed to be over. Well, that would hardly apply to the woman in this song who is clearly getting more than enough sex. So my advice to the narrator would be 'walk away, this woman is not simply promiscuous, she is screwed up and that is a real risk'. Due to that line this is actually a very unnerving song.
The lyrics:
I guess I shoulda known by the way you parked your car sideways
That it wouldn't last
See you're the kinda person that believes in makin' out once
Love 'em and leave 'em fast
I guess I must be dumb
'Cuz you had a pocket full of horses
Trojan and some of them used
But it was Saturday night, I guess that makes it all right
And you say what have I got to lose?
And honey I say
Little red corvette
Baby you're much too fast
Little red corvette
You need a love that's gonna last
I guess I shoulda closed my eyes
When you drove me to the place where your horses run free
'Cuz I felt a little ill
When I saw all the pictures
Of the jockeys that were there before me
Believe it or notI started to worry
I wondered if I had enough class
But it was Saturday night, I guess that makes it all right
And you say, "Baby, have you got enough gas?"
Oh yeah
Little red corvette
Baby you're much too fast, yes your Little red corvette
You need to find a love that's gonna last, oh-oh
A body like yours
Oughta be in jail
'Cuz it's on the verge of bein' obscene
Move over baby, gimme the keys
I'm gonna try to tame your little red love machine
Little red corvette
Baby you're much to fast
Little red corvette
You need to find a love that's gonna last
Little red corvette
Honey you got to slow down
Little red corvette'
Cuz if you don't your gonna run little red corvette right in the ground
Honey you got to slow down
You, you, you got to slow down
You're movin' much to fast
You need to find a love that's gonna last
Girl, you got an ass like I never seen
And the ride... I say the ride is so smooth
you must be a limousine
Baby you're much too fast
Little red corvette
You need a love,
You need a love that's, that's gonna last, oh oh
You got to slow down
Little red corvette
'Cuz if you don't, 'cuz if you don't,
You gonna run your body right into the ground
Right into the ground
Right into the ground
Little red corvette, baby, oh
Now, I imagine the Osborne song was quite controversial because it likens God to a slob. It is also pretty dreary anyway. Neither of these things are what irritate me. It is the lines 'seeing meant that you had to believe in things like Heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets?'. Of course meeting God does not mean you have to believe in any of those other things. One may accept that God can only live in Heaven, but people were believing in God before Jesus even turned up. Muslims believe in God and accept Jesus as one of the prophets but not God's son, so they believe in him but not the way Osborne implies it. Jews also believe in God but most of them do not believe Jesus was his son either, though they accept he was alive. As for the saints many Protestants do not believe in them or that they were anything more special than good people. Few people have much problem with the prophets. However, Osborne's implication is that you have to accept this whole, pretty much Roman Catholic package or nothing at all. This is reinforced by the final line about ''cept for the Pope in Rome'. That both implies that the Pope has a particular connection to God lacking for other Christian leaders and he is the only one who tries to get in touch with God. Of course millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims communicate with God daily, the Pope certainly has no monopoly on this. I have no problem with Roman Catholics, but I was irritated by this song which raised the question of meeting God in such a one-dimensional way, assuming all the listeners are Roman Catholic (even though the USA where Osborne is from is predominantly Protestant) and these issues could not be addressed by people of other denominations or by non-Christians.
The lyrics:
If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?
Chorus:
And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like Heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?
Chorus
Back up to Heaven all alone
No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome
From one extreme to the other. I have no problem with 'Little Red Corvette' being an analogy for a woman's genitals, whether it is her vulva, clitoris or whatever. Likening cars and driving them to sexual activity is fine. There are also horse racing analogies too. The story of the song is interesting about a man feeling uncertain about having sexual relations with a clearly promiscuous woman who flaunts how many sexual partners she has had and is even taunting of the narrator 'Baby have you got enough gas?'. Given Prince's very sexual identity it is interesting that this song which is credited with breaking him through into the big time is about a man plagued with uncertainty in a sexual situation and about a woman who is clearly far more confident, assertive, even in this context. The narrator is warning the woman, not so much about the dangers of risky sex, it is clear she uses condoms (Trojans) so this is not like 'Sign o' the Times' (1987) with 'a big disease with a little name', it seems to be more a warning about the emotional impact of continued promiscuity. Anyway, all that aside the one line in this song which makes me want to vomit is 'you had a pocket full of horses, Trojan, and some of them used'. Now what woman even a promiscuous one carries around used condoms? If any of us encountered a woman like that you would have major doubts about her. What was she doing, keeping them as trophies? She already has photographs of her conquests. Is she trying to collect sperm samples? Clearly she does not want to get pregnant otherwise she would get her sexual partners to use condoms. This woman is clearly seriously screwed up. The main thing it reminded me of was an elderly gay man I encountered in East London in the late 1990s who used to go around Victoria Park collecting used condoms apparently for some vicarious pleasure at this evidence of sex because his days of such activity seemed to be over. Well, that would hardly apply to the woman in this song who is clearly getting more than enough sex. So my advice to the narrator would be 'walk away, this woman is not simply promiscuous, she is screwed up and that is a real risk'. Due to that line this is actually a very unnerving song.
The lyrics:
I guess I shoulda known by the way you parked your car sideways
That it wouldn't last
See you're the kinda person that believes in makin' out once
Love 'em and leave 'em fast
I guess I must be dumb
'Cuz you had a pocket full of horses
Trojan and some of them used
But it was Saturday night, I guess that makes it all right
And you say what have I got to lose?
And honey I say
Little red corvette
Baby you're much too fast
Little red corvette
You need a love that's gonna last
I guess I shoulda closed my eyes
When you drove me to the place where your horses run free
'Cuz I felt a little ill
When I saw all the pictures
Of the jockeys that were there before me
Believe it or notI started to worry
I wondered if I had enough class
But it was Saturday night, I guess that makes it all right
And you say, "Baby, have you got enough gas?"
Oh yeah
Little red corvette
Baby you're much too fast, yes your Little red corvette
You need to find a love that's gonna last, oh-oh
A body like yours
Oughta be in jail
'Cuz it's on the verge of bein' obscene
Move over baby, gimme the keys
I'm gonna try to tame your little red love machine
Little red corvette
Baby you're much to fast
Little red corvette
You need to find a love that's gonna last
Little red corvette
Honey you got to slow down
Little red corvette'
Cuz if you don't your gonna run little red corvette right in the ground
Honey you got to slow down
You, you, you got to slow down
You're movin' much to fast
You need to find a love that's gonna last
Girl, you got an ass like I never seen
And the ride... I say the ride is so smooth
you must be a limousine
Baby you're much too fast
Little red corvette
You need a love,
You need a love that's, that's gonna last, oh oh
You got to slow down
Little red corvette
'Cuz if you don't, 'cuz if you don't,
You gonna run your body right into the ground
Right into the ground
Right into the ground
Little red corvette, baby, oh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
