So, where are all these Christians?

After decades of pondering, I have decided to classify myself as a “Jesuan”. (I would have preferred “Jesuit”, but apparently that has already been taken).

Why Jesuan, and not just Christian? Simply, because I believe there is a wealth of wisdom in the Gospels, if you just ignore the crap about gods and angels, heaven, hell and demons.

There is also a small problem of reality. For instance, I would claim my four greatest heroes from history to be: Jesus of Nazareth, Arthur of Camelot, Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest, and Mahatma Gandhi. Sadly, I am only certain of the physical reality of one of them. This to my mind, in no way negates the value of the stories. True perfection after all can only exist in the imagination, so this seems a fitting place for legendary heroes. Even so, I would have to say I was deeply disappointed to read some of the words of the young Gandhi, regarding “coolies”, for instance.

Good stories are always embellished, inevitably. I choose to believe all the stories of our legendary heroes are based on exceptional individuals, who fully deserved to be remembered; perhaps even lied about.

If the stories of Jesus were the product of many minds, it just means there existed more than one good mind.

We are all prisoners of our preconceptions. When we are raised virtually from birth to accept things as being beyond question, the step from inside the box to outside, can be very big indeed.

The first step I would suggest is to adopt an objective, rather than subjective, stance; or, as Jesus put it, “Before you attempt to remove the splinter from your neighbour’s eye, first remove the plank from your own”.

In his recent book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins belabours the point that we (who were raised as Christians) don’t actually derive our sense of morality from the Bible; in fact, rather the opposite. We use our (innate?) sense of morality to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we should take literally, and which to treat as allegorical.

This is a can of worms indeed, as there are so many moral viewpoints. Even the Christian, or Catholic Church specifically, has taken some fairly shaky interpretations of the Word of their God. For instance, Jesus stated very plainly that it was impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, specifically: “I tell you again, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”. (Matthew 20.24.)

This demonstrates very clearly that the words “rich Christian” must be oxymoronic, yet our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, claims to be a fervent Christian despite being a multimillionaire, and the Pope in Rome, the “first under God” lives amid splendour that can only be the envy of kings and potentates, and rules a corporate empire richer than many countries.

To avoid any accusations of exaggeration or taking words out of context, I think it appropriate to quote the entire passage:

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

So how can this be, and what is so wrong with being rich?

In the first place, the church in almost all its forms has always felt the need to awe and impress, just as secular leaders, the “kings and potentates”, have: despite worshipping a man who had nothing more than the clothes on his back, and the sandals on his feet. Indeed, it could be argued the church has been, willingly or not, consciously or not, the very tool of oppression, offering solace to the poor even as it condoned the decadence and hypocrisy of the rich.

Even in Australia, a young country in terms of Christian culture, I have seen outback townships where all the houses were built from corrugated iron and clapboard, and the only brick building was a church.

What is so wrong with being rich?

According to the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was asked by an expert in law, “teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied (a man of his times, and as superstitious as any) “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Obviously, atheists would choose to disregard the first rule entirely, Wiccans and other nature worshippers might choose to substitute Nature, or Gaia, for God. This in no way invalidates the second rule.

The “expert” then asked, “Who is my neighbour?” Jesus went on to relate the parable of the “Good Samaritan”, which I would like to address a little later. Suffice to say, Samaritans were the enemies of the Jews, yet Jesus advocated loving them, on the basis that not all Samaritans were bad people.

In other parts of the Gospels Jesus, the sublime teacher, tried to clarify and simplify even more by adopting the “Golden Rule”: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Even I, as a Jesuan, cannot claim this was original. Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, the ancient Greek philosophers, Mohammed, and virtually all the world’s religions somewhere, at some time, refer to some variation of this very simple, very fundamental rule.

So ask yourself this simple question: if you were the parent of one of the 30,000 children who die every single day, simply because they are too poor to live, how would you feel about the very concept of billionaires? Or even millionaires, like the fervently Christian Kevin Rudd.

We’re talking here about the accident of birth, and this is where the story gets really sickening.

That other mob, the Jesuits, have a saying, “there, but by the grace of God, go I”. This is a simple admission that not one of us, ever, has chosen the place, time or manner of our own birth. We don’t choose our genetic inheritance, our nationality (of birth), our sex, our adult height, looks, physical or mental characteristics, the place where we grow up, the schools we attend, our teachers, even the local pool of individuals we can dip into for close personal friendships.

In short, we have no control over any of the things that make us who we are.

So what is “really sickening” about this?

The fact that Christians, along with all the other religions which believe in a personal God, can say this is “God’s will”. It’s not our fault. It’s the way God must want it. God caused me to be born into a wealthy environment, therefore God must want me to be wealthy.

It gets worse.

The very same Christians who believe in the sentiments of those last sentences, are the ones who can’t understand atheists. They are the ones who are inclined to say, “ if there is no God, no heaven, then what is the point in being good? Like, what’s in it for me?”

Can you imagine the sort of world Christians like that would create?

Oh, wait a minute; you don’t have to.

Step outside the box, for a second.

All those of us who were raised as Christians were told almost from birth that “God gave his only son”. We were told that “Jesus died for our sins”. How does that work?

As a parent, imagine for me.

Imagine a situation where you would be prepared to deliberately allow your child to have his hands and feet nailed to a wooden cross, and then left to die of slow suffocation, as his own weight, suspended from nails through his wrists, slowly crushed his lungs. In order to prove you are compassionate.

What sort of example does that create?

That it is noble to sacrifice your children to a “higher purpose”? Is this why we have had the absurdity of two “Christian” countries, both praying to the same God for victory in war, against each other?

Now imagine a Jesuan world. Imagine moving from the place where you grew up, to a totally new town. Imagine wanting to make new friends. Imagine being able to just go to a meeting hall on a Sunday morning, and find a whole congregation of people who share your core values.

Values like caring for others, and being kind, compassionate and generous; not for the sake of some eternal reward, but simply because to do otherwise would be unthinkable. Rather than meeting a whole bunch of people who regard religion as nothing more than a death insurance policy.

Imagine being able to make new friends instantly, because you can identify people who believe in the same values as you do.

Anywhere in the world.

In a world like that, how could war be possible?

That’s how it’s supposed to work.

I promised I would speak of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Just wait.

I also left a mistake in there. I wonder if anyone will pick it up?