JTL Series: Revisiting Matthew, Chapter 8

Part 6 of my "Jesus the Letdown" series.

• Verses 1 - 4: Jesus cures a man of leprosy. Just one man. Not the entire nation, no great big show, just touch the man and he's well. Further, Jesus explicitly instructs the man not to tell anyone. What the heck is that about? Why, after healing the man in front of a crowd of people, would Jesus want the man to keep the healing a secret? Also, why didn't Jesus ever say anything about bacteria and antibiotics? That's how we cure leprosy now. Maybe Jesus was administering antibiotics when he touched the man?
• Verses 5 - 13: A Roman Centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant, who is sick at home. He is so convinced of Jesus' power that he grovels a bit, then says that Jesus can heal the servant just by giving word that the servant is healed, without the bother of going all the way to the Centurion's house. Jesus makes a mini-speech praising the Centurion's gullibility (faith), then finishes up by warning that Jews aren't shoo-ins for heaven. He's basically saying that you must have faith to get to heaven, not just be a Jew. Fair enough, but why will less gullible (faithful) Jews be "...thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"? Can't God be more merciful?
• Verses 21 - 22: a disciple asks Jesus for permission to bury his father. Jesus replies, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." Now why would Jesus' mission, which would last another three years, be unable to allow this guy to go bury his father? Yet another inexplicable command from Jesus.
• Verses 23 - 27: Jesus and pals are in a boat in a furious storm. Jesus is asleep. Not sure how one is to sleep during a furious storm, but anyway. Pals are all terrified that the storm will drown them, so they wake him up, apparently hoping that he can do something. Jesus' response? "Calm down guys, I'm God. I will not let anything happen to you." Not. Instead, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" I don't know, this doesn't seem like the most compassionate thing he could have said. I don't give my daughter a hard time when she's afraid of something that I know I can handle.
• Verse 28 - 34: Jesus exorcises demons from a couple of men, sending the demons into a herd of pigs, resulting in the deaths of all the pigs. What about the owner of those pigs? What if those pigs were all he had? And how about the pigs dying, apparently by drowning? This is not a god of compassion and mercy. I can understand why the townspeople asked him to go away: they were afraid of losing their livelihood to this guy's antics.

JTL Series: Revisiting Matthew, Chapter 7

Part 5 of my "Jesus the Letdown" series.

• Verses 1 - 2: Don't judge other people. Well, a nice sentiment, but look at the sanction: in the same way you judge others, you'll be judged yourself. So judging itself isn't immoral, it's just God's exclusive right. But what about, don't judge other people because we're all in this together. Why couldn't Jesus have focused on the compassionate aspect of not judging, rather than making it into a sinful act, deserving of punishment?
• Verses 3 - 5: Don't be a hypocrite. Make sure that you see clearly before you tell someone else that he/she doesn't see clearly. Fair enough. But I'm convinced that if Jesus had focused more on compassion for others, he wouldn't have had to say so much about hypocrisy. He really was just working within the conceptual framework of the society at the time, not introducing some radical new way of thinking.
• Verse 6: Don't throw your pearls to swine. Again, it's useful advice, if you accept the "us and them" mentality that Jesus so obviously accepts. I would have expected something new and unusual from the Son of God. Also, in order to determine whether I should get my pearls out, I must first judge whether the person to whom I'm showing them is a pig. In what sense are we not to judge, if we have permission to judge this person to be a pig on whom my pearls would be wasted?
• Verses 7 - 11: Ask and it will be given to you? Bullshit. Seek and you will find? Bullshit. A man won't give a stone to his son who asks for bread, or a snake to his son who asks for a fish. God's way better than that; if we evildoers know how to give good gifts to our kids, then how much more will God give us good gifts when we ask. Bullshit.
• Verse 12: Do unto others. The Golden Rule, embedded in all this crap. This is the best that the Son of God can do?
• Verse 13 - 14: It's hard to do the right thing. Fair enough. But again, the terror of punishment follows: "...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." So most of us are screwed.
• Verses 15 - 20: Know them by their fruit. This is perhaps the best thing Jesus ever said. By the miserable fruit he provided us, namely all this very human wisdom with nothing really divine anywhere, we can see that he was just a man, assuming that he even existed. Also, given that his pronouncements are mostly garbage, we have to assume that he was very charismatic. Otherwise no one would have paid any attention to him.
• Verses 21 - 23: You can't be saved just by saying, "Lord, Lord" to Jesus and performing miracles. Jesus wants you to be good as well. I think that a real God of love would save everyone, even the hypocrites and charlatans.
• Verses 24 - 27: Do what Jesus says, and you will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock foundation rather than a sand foundation. We can barely figure out what he's telling us to do. And even when we can figure it out, most of it just sounds screwy.

What do helicopters catching Skylab have to do with Arab-Israeli peace?

I was just beginning my teen years when Skylab fell on July 11, 1979. I remember people talking about whether it would cause damage on the ground, and how such damage could be prevented. One news clip on TV showed the ideas of an American classroom of little kids, perhaps preschool or kindergarten age: crayon drawings showing various ways of dealing with a falling space station. My favorite was a giant net stretched between two helicopters. The idea was for Skylab to fall safely into the net, allowing the helicopters to guide it gently to the ground.

I think that we could learn something from the exercise of those little kids: we need some brainstorming, some way of being really creative, generating ideas, with no risk of criticism. We need to get a whole mountain of ideas out onto the table, because somewhere in that mountain there will be at least a few ideas that could be helpful, if not in providing immediate solutions, at least providing some possible ways to move toward peace.

I have a very childish idea.

Years ago I read an article in a science magazine about game theory and how it could be used in simple, two-sided land disputes. The formula was simple: have one side of the negotiators propose the most fair division they can come up with, but let the other side be the first to choose which piece of the pie they will take. This is a beautifully simple plan. It forces the people doing the division into really thinking about what's fair, because they know that they'll get the second choice.

I propose this not even as a final solution, but just as a brainstorming mechanism: create a website that allows everyone, everywhere to propose their best ideas on how to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, with the knowledge that each proposal gives first choice to the other side. So an Israeli would propose a division of Palestine that allows the Arabs to choose their half first. Let this website get filled up with hundreds or even thousands of proposals. The two sides of the conflict can sit at home, not having to worry about the pressures of negotiations, and quietly reflect on these proposals. Surely there will be a few, or at least one, that is thought to be a good idea by both camps. Maybe there could even be a voting mechanism, so the two camps of negotiators and leaders can see the popularity of the proposals, in case they want to listen to the voice of the people.

I think that we can find a solution to this problem. Maybe I'm just the kid drawing helicopters catching Skylab, but even if it's a naive or even stupid idea, maybe someone smart will read it and be inspired to come up with a good idea.

JTL Series: Revisiting the four resurrection stories

Part 4 of my "Jesus the Letdown" Series.

The four resurrection stories conflict in ways that matter:

Matthew 28: Two Marys go to the tomb. A violent earthquake occurs as an angel of the Lord comes down, rolls back the stone covering the entrance to the tomb, and sits on the stone. "His appearance was like lightning," and his clothes were white. The guards, who had been posted to prevent Jesus' disciples faking a resurrection, shake and become "like dead men". The angel says to the two women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified..."

Mark 16: Two Marys and Salome go to the tomb, finding the stone already rolled out of the way. No mention of earthquake or angel or guards. Inside the tomb, no Jesus, but a man sitting "on the right side" wearing white robes. No mention of his lightning-like appearance. The young man says, "Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified..."

Luke 24: "The women" (apparently two Marys and a Joanna) go to the tomb, finding the stone already rolled out of the way. No earthquake, angel, or guards. Inside the tomb, no Jesus, but suddenly two men in lightning clothes are standing beside them. The men say, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen..."

John 20: Mary goes to the tomb, no mention of any other women. She finds the stone "removed from the entrance". No mention of her entering the tomb. She runs to Peter and "the other disciple, the one Jesus loved," and tells them that there's no Jesus. Simon Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb and enter it, observing burial paraphernalia with no corpse attached. These two disciples go back home, leaving Mary apparently still alone. She looks inside the tomb once more and sees "two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.' They ask, "Woman, why are you crying?" Suddenly Jesus is there; she turns around and sees him, but does not recognize him. He also asks, "Woman, why are you crying?"

• All four differ on which woman/women went to the tomb.
• One account mentions an earthquake and an angel rolling the stone back; the other three mention no earthquake and say that the stone was already away from the entrance when the women got there.
• One account mentions Roman guards who apparently passed out at the sight of the angel; the other three mention no guards.
• Two accounts mention only one heavenly being; two accounts mention two heavenly beings; one account mentions two heavenly beings preceding the appearance of the risen Jesus himself.
• One account mentions Jesus' physical presence at the tomb and his conversation with one of the women while apparently still at the tomb; the other three have the heavenly beings explicitly announcing, "He is not here."
• Two accounts have the women being instructed to go tell the disciples that Jesus is risen, and that they are to meet him in Galilee; one account has the women receiving a short sermon but no instructions; one account has Mary receiving instructions from Jesus himself, but only to deliver a cryptic message to the disciples and nothing about Galilee.
• Three accounts have the women returning to the disciples with the Good News; one has the women saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid"
• One account has Jesus appearing to the women after they had "hurried away from the tomb"; one has no Jesus appearing at all (my NIV tells me that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from the most reliable manuscripts); one has no Jesus appearing to anyone until later that day; one has a woman at the tomb, who "turned around and saw Jesus standing there".

JTL Series: Revisiting Matthew, Chapter 6

Part 3 of my "Jesus the Letdown" series

• Verses 1 - 4: Don't make a big, ostentatious show of your charity. Really? Why not? Conspicuous giving would encourage others to be charitable as well. Charity for the wrong reasons is still charity. What matters more: the alleviation of suffering or observing the proper secrecy in charitable acts? Plus, see the sanctions Jesus imposes on those who make a big show? Verse 1: ...you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. Verse 6: Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. How about the internal reward of knowing that you've done something good? Jesus' version of Christianity sounds a lot like Islam to me, with this idea that in heaven you'll receive a reward for your righteous acts.
• Verse 5: And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites...remember the criticism against many atheists these days, such as Richard Dawkins: people want to know why they won't debate religious people. The reason is that debating them gives them a forum, dignifying their position. Jesus dignifies the hypocrites by mentioning them. Who gives a shit about the hypocrites? Where is the social reform? Where are mercy and kindness? Who is this guy?
• Verses 8 - 13: ...your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This, then, is how you should pray: ...lead us not into temptation...So, he knows what we need already, so much so that there is no need to remind him of our crop failure and epidemics, but still we have to remind him not to lead us into temptation?
• Verses 14 - 15: Forgive, or God will not forgive you. What? The fact that I don't want to be friendly with the people who mistreated me as a child means that I have to burn in hell forever?
• Verses 16 - 18: More of this reward bullshit. Fast secretly, so God will reward you. Ick!
• Verses 19 - 21: Don't store up treasures...if he'd stopped there, it would have been good advice about not being too materialistic. But instead, he has to add, ...on earth...but store up for yourself treasures in heaven. Sounds an awful lot like telling people not to invest much in this life, but instead to invest in the next life. Even if there is a next life, it seems better to invest as much as possible in the alleviation of suffering in this life.
• Verses 22 - 23: The eye is the lamp of the body...huh? Is Jesus trying to talk about some connection between one's eyes and one's morality? Sounds like nonsense.
• Verse 24: You cannot serve both God and Money. The fact that this God doesn't seem worthy of my attention makes this a sort of nonsense statement. But even if we wanted to say "progressive social policy" instead of "God", it would be a false statement. Lots of rich people are philanthropists.
• Verses 25 - 34: Don't worry, God will take care of you. Bullshit. There are so many people in the world being very badly cared for, and there always have been.

JTL Series: Revisiting Matthew, Chapter 5

Part 2 of my "Jesus the Letdown" series

• Verses 3 - 5: Jesus blesses the poor in spirit, those who mourn, and the meek. What is wrong with this guy? His first public pronouncements endorse poverty and victimhood. Why does the Son of the Supreme Being introduce himself to humanity by admitting defeat at the hands of human nature? Why can't he say something like, "Mourning might be necessary, but poverty and slavery don't have to happen, and here's a new way to think that will eliminate them both"?
• Verse 6: Jesus blesses "those who hunger and thirst for righteousness". I don't know, it's one thing to hunger and thirst for social justice, but another thing entirely to hunger and thirst for something stupid, like sexual virtue. Seems like he could have been clearer on this one.
• Verse 7: Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Yay! After 96 verses, the Son of God finally says something meaningful.
• Verse 8: Blessed are the "pure in heart"? What the heck does that mean?
• Verse 9: Blessed are the peacemakers...ok, now we're on a roll, two good ones in rapid succession.
• Verse 10: Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness...this one is pretty good if you accept that the world has to have persecutors of righteousness in it. It still seems to me that the Son of God should have brought us some new way of thinking that would eliminate or at least reduce persecution in the world.
• Verses 11 - 12: A blessing on all who are ever persecuted because of Jesus. This is just a little too much "us and them" for me. Why wouldn't Jesus have introduced a way for people to get along, rather than inviting people with a persecution complex to become the public face of Christianity?
• Verse 13: You are the salt of the earth...this just sounds like empty nonsense to me.
• Verse 14: You are the light of the world...let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds...so much for the idea of doing good deeds in secret, not letting your right hand know what the left is doing (Chapter 6 verses 1 - 4). One might think that the Son of God would be a little more clear.
• Verse 20: For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Wow, does that ever bring back memories. When I first read this, verse, I was unaware that we had historical and archaeological accounts of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. I assumed that no one knew anything any more about these people. Now it occurs to me that the whole idea sounds wrong: it's a stereotype. In every group of people I've ever observed, there are cool people and there are jerks. Stereotyping an entire group is really simple-minded, not the sort of thing I'd expect from the Son of God.
• Verses 21 - 22: Busted for being angry, in danger of hell for being contemptuous? Why can't the Son of God teach that anger can be healthy? And if contempt is such a terrible thing, how about some tips for the victim, on how to get over it?
• Verses 23 - 24: Be at peace with your brother before you offer a gift at the altar. A nice sentiment. That's three worthy pronouncements so far.
• Verses 25 - 26: Prefer to settle matters out of court; you might end up in jail yourself. Ok, that's four. Still, these four gems of wisdom are nothing that couldn't have been said by the simplest bumpkin from Galilee.
• Verses 27 - 28: Lusting in one's heart is the same sin as adultery. Yikes. Thought crime. I would expect more from an omnipotent being.
• Verses 29 - 30: Gouge out sinful eyes and cut off sinful hands. Brutal, even if it's supposed to be metaphorical, which isn't clear at all.
• Verses 31 - 32: I can make my wife a sinner by divorcing her? This makes no sense at all.
• Verses 33 - 37: Don't make oaths; just say "yes" or "no". Hmm, maybe there's some historical context that I'm missing here. This just doesn't sound like the earth-shattering sort of thing one might expect from the Son of God.
• Verses 38 - 42: Don't resist evil, turn the other cheek, give more than you're sued for, go further than you're forced to, give and lend generously. Meh, nice enough sentiments, but really a bit ambiguous and not terribly useful advice.
• Verses 43 - 48: Love your enemies, not just those who love you. It could have been that he meant something like, "Have compassion for everyone so you won't hate anyone." But if he meant that, why didn't he say it? As stated, he's allowing us to consider people enemies as long as we "love" them. I don't know, I just would have expected something a bit richer from the Son of God.

Jesus the Letdown: Revisiting Matthew, Chapters 1 - 2

The book of Matthew was my first serious attempt at reading the bible. This was my response to receiving the hideous news that the hell waiting for me was eternal torment, rather than the orphanage–like conditions I had always imagined as a little kid. I've recounted my experience of reading Matthew for the first time in a different post. Now it seems time to revisit the book and see what it means to me now.

Chapter I:

• Verses 1 - 17: a waste of time: a genealogy purportedly linking Jesus back to Adam via the line of King David and the Patriarch Abraham.
• Verse 25: But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. A clumsy attempt to underscore Jesus' paternity--if Joseph hadn't refrained from having "union" with Mary, it might have been suggested that Jesus was simply Joseph's son.

Chapter II:

• Verses 13 - 23: an "angel of the Lord" gives Joseph a message in a dream: go to Egypt and wait for Herod to die, as Herod is having infants killed to avoid having his throne usurped. Then, an "angel of the Lord" appears again, telling Joseph to go back to Israel. Joseph packs up the family and goes back, but finds that Archaleus is now in power, and Joseph is afraid to return to Jesus' birthplace. Fortunately, Joseph has yet another dream, the details of which are not specified, but which provides him some kind of warning. Why couldn't this all have happened in a single dream? "Joseph, go to Egypt until Herod dies, then go to Nazareth." Would that have been so hard? I could even understand two dreams: one to warn him to go to Egypt and one to tell him to come back. What I can't understand is why a third dream would have been required. Why couldn't the Supreme Being of All Things have told Joseph in the second dream (or the first!) that he should go to Nazareth instead of back to Judea?
• Note especially verse 16, where Herod has all the boys under two years old in the Bethlehem area slaughtered. No help from God? No tip-off to someone to smuggle their children to safety? The more I think of it, the uglier it seems. If you knew that someone was coming to kill the children in your town, would you sneak out without telling anyone?
• Note especially verses 6, 15, 23: the author works awfully hard to emphasize that Jesus is the fulfillment of many Old Testament prefigurations of Jesus. These are, respectively:
• The Messiah will come from Bethlehem
• "Out of Egypt I have called my son" -- a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt (which probably never happened)?
• "He will be called a Nazarene."
Seems like an awful lot of contrivance to squeeze Jesus into old prophecies. Also note that no one has ever found any prophet claiming that the Messiah would be "called a Nazarene." I find a typical defense of this obvious error to be a typical Christian tactic: when it makes God look good, God inspired it, and when it makes God look bad, fallible humans are to blame.