|
Freethought
Association of West Michigan
Meeting Minutes for August 13, 2003; #144
Topic:
WWJD: Debunking Popular Myths About Jesus
Dr. Gregory
Forbes spoke to us about two bills that have dangerous implications
for the teaching of science; particularly biology and its foundation:
evolution. The HB 4946 and its counterpart, 5005 are the latest
attempts to get “balanced treatment” for the “competing
theories” of biological evolution and the new creationists’
Intelligent Design Theory. These not only seek to “modify
state standards for teaching evolution in public schools”
by diluting the central significance of evolution in the understanding
of biology, but also in repeating the gross misunderstandings
of the anti-evolutionists, such as that evolution is “only
a theory” (showing a sometimes willful ignorance of what
constitutes a scientific theory –for instance gravitational
theory, cell theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory, etc.) and
of how the practice of science is conducted—the methodology
and pedagogy and how creationism in any of its guises fails to
measure up procedurally or in generating fruitful data or testing
of hypotheses or unifying natural concepts and laws. The standards
proposed require that all students be able to “explain competing
theories.” This would be akin (secretarial editorializing
here) to having students explain how Atlas holds up the Earth
or a stack of turtles do (another myth) as other “competing
theories” governing the movement of and gravitational forces
exerted upon planetary bodies.
Dr. Forbes explained to us how these bills have more signatories,
authors and support by far than any previous attempts and will
likely make us the “new Kansas” as this gains national
attention. There is more urgency in the defeat of these bills
than in the past and he advised us to write letters to the editor,
call and or write representatives, and examine pertinent websites
including: www.michigancitizensforscience.com <http://www.michigancitizensforscience.com/>
.
We were reminded of our new venue for after meeting socializing;
Vitale’s bar and restaurant on Leonard, NE- the same street
our meeting is on but west- toward downtown G.R. and at the corner
of Leonard and Emerald.
Kim Blaker, author of the book Fundamentals of Extremism; The
Christian Right in America, will be at the Rivertown Crossings
Barnes & Noble for a book signing. She spoke to our group
in a past meeting on the title topic of her well- researched and
illuminating book.
PLEASE remember to bring books for sale and money to purchase
books offered, for our First Annual Freethought Book Sale happening
before and after our next meeting on August 27!
That meeting will feature Professor Carl Bajema speaking to us
on the subject: “Richard Dawkins- The Devil’s Chaplain.”
On September 10, Judith Walker-Riggs, interim senior minister
at Fountain Street Church, will present “A Critique of Atheism
and Humanism.”
Professor Forbes, mentioned above, will speak to us on September
24th on the topic “Nature or Nurture; How do Genes, Environment
& Free Will Affect Human Behavior?”
Dr. Paul Critelli, a member who has been too long absent from
our midst, will present “The Latest Woo Woo” on October
8. Following in the long established tradition of such magicians
as Harry Houdini and James “The Amazing” Randi, Critelli,
also a prestidigitator, debunks pseudo scientific, New Age, psychic
and spiritual claims by showing how the deceptions are accomplished
via natural means.
David Fideler, PhD, author of Jesus Christ, Sun of God—Ancient
Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism, and director of the Concord
Grove Educational Center, will present to us “Ancient Cosmology
and Early Christian Symbolism” on October 22.
Our Hallowe’en Party this year is scheduled for November
1, starting at 7PM at the Seaver’s in Allendale. 616-892-9300.
There will be a bon fire, hay ride and good times as always. Costumes
are optional, BYOB and food to share.
“Freethought and the Arts” will be the topic of this
slightly different meeting approach on November 12. There will
be performances and discussion of music, poetry, paintings and
other art forms by freethinkers. If you would like to be an active
part of this or have questions regarding it, please contact Jeff
at info@freethoughtassociation.org.
Note that there will be no meeting on November 26.
Our last scheduled gathering of the year will be on December 10
for our annual Solstice Celebration. This year we will meet for
food, libations and socializing at the Siam Lady (Thai) in Jenison,
on Baldwin St. More information as the time approaches. No meeting
or scheduled event is taking place on Dec. 24 for our group.
FAoWM member Jeremy Crow presented the topic for this meeting
which was “WWJD; Debunking Popular Myths About Jesus.”
In this presentation we examined the character and teachings of
Jesus from a secular perspective, which was, he ironically noted,
actually Fundamentalist friendly in the sense that he would be
assuming that Jesus was a real, historical person and that what
he is given to have said were actually stated him. Crow also was
not going to assume that Jesus “changed his mind”
after he died, therefore, he was not going to entertain later
revisions to the thoughts attributed to Jesus during his lifetime.
The secular aspect of this investigation related more to not looking
at Jesus as the literal offspring of a deity and virgin mother
and in not going the route of Christian apologetics in reconciling
his words with the ideal version of him that is generally presented,
which are often to be found in conflict.
The title of his presentation includes that once ubiquitous Christian
kitsch item, the bracelet (or tee shirt design) with the letters
(WWJD) for What Would Jesus Do? Crow said that he first encountered
this item when he was in high school, sitting with a non-Christian
friend who was wearing the bracelet. The friend explained that
even though he did not regard Jesus as a great prophet or God
incarnate, he believed that he was a good man and teacher and
that the bracelet served as a reminder of the thinking of this
benevolent teacher when he was in doubt regarding the vagaries
and dilemmas of life. Crow was used to being “systematically
taught what to feel and think about everything” from being
in a church group, so his friend’s rationalization juxtaposed
against his own indoctrination of Jesus being the Son of God and
Savior of Mankind (not just a good man and teacher) was bewildering
for Jeremy.
Later, Crow was studying for his Bachelor’s degree in Religious
Education with the intent of actually going into the ministry.
But he soon discovered the many contradictions and inconsistencies
that were part and parcel of his religious faith. Like all budding
freethinkers, he began to ask tough questions but was never given
responses that were satisfying, especially within the context
of his orthodox religious beliefs. He became an atheist. Suddenly
the moral core and foundation of his universe was found lacking.
The Jesus he had been taught to exalt was dethroned and he had
to figure out a way to reconsider this paramount Christian figure
with his new- found disbelief in the central tenets of Christianity.
Was Christ now just a man with a message as his friend had regarded
him? And what aspects of Jesus’ character and teachings
could Crow now hold up for guidance and encouragement?
With that question in mind, Crow turned to another secularist
for his opinions on Jesus. The influential Humanist author, Corliss
Lamont, in his book The Philosophy of Humanism gave the Son high
marks, seeing Jesus as exemplifying the Humanist ideals of equality,
altruism, the brotherhood of man and peace on Earth. These ideals
were what Jeremy focused on in his examination with us as to how
well they held up against what Jesus actually expressed on these
subjects.
First, we looked at the question: “Was Jesus a Good Teacher
on Racial Equality?” Crow noted that there were but three
examples of Jesus interacting with people outside of his own ethnic
group; a Canaanite woman, a Roman Centurion and a half-Jew Samaritan
woman. Strange, that this champion of racial equality would have
only three examples of dealings with those outside his group,
except when we note that his ministry was not about outreach to
other ethnicities. In Matt. 10:5-6 in fact, Jesus instructs his
disciples to go out only to the Israelites and not to the Samaritans
or Gentiles. This was his mandate throughout his ministry as recorded
in the Gospels.
What about non-Jews who come to him? For this question, Crow turned
to Matt. 15: 22-28 regarding the Canaanite woman who petitioned
Jesus to heal her suffering daughter. His disciples essentially
recommended that he turn her away since she was bothersome. Jesus
had a perfect opportunity to give a lesson in equality to his
followers at this point but instead announced to the woman that
he was sent only for the “…lost sheep of Israel.”
When she implored further on her suffering daughter’s behalf
the “merciful” Jesus made an analogy of the non-Jews
as dogs not meriting his graces that were intended for his people.
Only when the woman acquiesces to her role as an unworthy and
unclean animal that may yet be fit to eat the crumbs that fall
from their master’s table, as might a dog, does Jesus relent
and heal the Canaanite girl. In other words, as long as you acknowledge
your lower place among Jesus’ ethnic group, you may be patted
on the head and rewarded for your self- deprecation.
Crow gave us an overview of the historical context from whence
Jesus’ opinions may have been born. While his account was
very crisp and succinct, yet still retaining a great deal of information,
I will nonetheless give an even more concise rendition here. The
period of the Babylonian captivity for the Jews was one where
they were enveloped in foreign customs and influences and longed
for a return to their autonomy before this time. Tim Callahan
(who spoke to our group), in his book on the origins of what would
become modern Judaism and Christianity, highlighted this period
as one where the Jews, in attempting to distance themselves from
the polytheistic culture they were enmeshed in, went to monotheism
and a harsher version of an all powerful, all judging god over
all creation, rather than the henotheism they had practiced up
until then, where a plethora of gods were sovereign only over
the specific lands and people of the various tribal regions.
During this period of captivity the Jews dreamed of a time when
they would emerge prosperous and victorious among the nations,
with God paving the way for His people. After Alexander the Great
brought about an effort of Hellenization for the conquered territories
there were those who resisted and there was a brief time of Jewish
independence before Roman control. Communities emerged from the
disenfranchised people that grew distant from the mainstream populace,
seeing themselves as righteous remnants of an older, better society.
When the destruction of the corrupting influences around them
came to pass, they figured, the time would be at hand for their
reign with God in His new kingdom.
In this historical context, Jesus seeing himself as drawing a
righteous remnant out of Israel, standing in opposition to the
popular religious groups of his time and declarations of an apocalyptic
establishment of a new heavenly order on Earth fits. The prophets
told of how the other nations of the world would be led out into
this new realm only by taking hold of the hem of the righteous
Jews who were going to Jerusalem- where God lives. The fate for
these coat-tail hangers- on was that of a serf on the land of
the Jews, tending their flocks and feeling blessed merely being
in the midst of the “chosen people” of the Creator.
So while the Jews had direct access to God, the Gentiles could
receive His blessings only by coming in submission, giving up
their riches and working their lands. With this context, Jesus’
treatment of the Canaanite woman’s plight was in keeping
with the views of his time.
The N.T. shows how changes are afoot in Jew/Gentile relationships.
God can declare anything/one clean and allow association between
His people and the uncircumcised without becoming sullied. In
Acts, it is declared that even the Gentiles may be granted Salvation.
But this was a shocking idea to those who were closest in time
to the teachings and actions of Jesus himself. Since Christ’s
ministry did discriminate, a special invocation by God would have
to be called upon for there to be inclusion of the Gentiles for
potential salvation. Visions were cited for such an exceptions
to Jesus’ teachings.
Upon examination Jesus becomes a less than sterling example of
racial/ ethnic equality, but seen in the context of his time and
if we view him as a non-divinity, he becomes more immune to harsh
judgments. Like Jefferson, Darwin and other figures who had revolutionary
ideas and spoke about equality and connections between all life
forms respectively while still holding onto the prejudices of
their time, Jesus’ behavior can be better understood. Only
when one makes him 33 and a third percent of an omniscient Creator
of All, does his worldview become problematic.
Next we turned to Jesus as a “good teacher” on the
issue of peace. On this, we have some mixed and contradictory
examples to draw from. There is his famous line blessing the peacemakers
and another where he says that those who draw the sword will die
by it; the gospel teachings of turning the other cheek, of loving
your enemies and praying for those who persecute you—all
are examples seeming to warrant his appellation as “Prince
of Peace.” But then there are those verses that fly in the
face of the ones just alluded to, where he proclaims that he comes
NOT to bring peace but a sword or where he explains that he is
there to divide; father against son, mother against daughter,
etc. He speaks of having those who do not submit to his will slain
before him. In the escatological passages he becomes, far from
the loving Christ, a vengeful one. Those who do not come around
to his way of thinking should be cut down as the fig trees that
bear no fruit. As a secretarial insert here, this writer notes
that both God and His son are rather strange examples of mentoring
individuals when they foretell of (or cause) horrific calamity,
plagues, death and destruction. One does not generally regard
a person who bullies, berates or kills those who do not agree
with him as a thoughtful, benevolent or worthy teacher.
So how do we reconcile the disparate passages regarding Christ’s
thoughts pertaining to peace? Crow suggested that we might want
to look at peace in its less familiar light—the negative
way of understanding the term—as an absence of conflict.
“And if peace is just the absence of conflict, then the
complete eradication of all those who oppose you might just achieve
that goal.” This gains credence when you look at the apocalyptic
tales of how peace is attained via Jesus in the accounts in Revelations,
with entire nations wiped out. “It’s peace by default,
“ Jeremy said. “There’s nobody left that could
possibly challenge him.” This vision of peace becomes a
temporary interlude before a conflict whereupon God will pour
down His wrath. A passage in Romans that Crow quoted gives this
idea well that there is no need for worry about your enemies---they
will get what’s coming to them ultimately by God.
Crow made the interesting comment that Jesus was no doubt aware
of the messiahs who came before him and their sad outcomes and
did not wish to perpetuate this unhappy ending. So he would judge,
condemn people to everlasting horrific torture forever, and tell
of doom and gloom for those who did not follow him but he did
not particularly want to incite people to violence, bringing about
his own undoing. As noted earlier, the time of Jesus was one where
his people were the underdogs. If he lived during a time of “…unchecked
political power [his pronouncements] might be very different.”
As a Humanist, Crow allowed that he, unlike the fellow Humanist,
Lamont, could not see how a man who spouted such a gruesome worldview
as Jesus did could be considered an especially peaceful person
or a great teacher for the peaceful attitude. However, he left
it up to our own judgment as to how we perceive the King of the
Jews.
On a more positive note in our assessment of Jesus, Crow asserted
that as to altruism, Jesus should indeed receive high marks. “Jesus’
emphasis on charity, helping the community, on stressing the worth
and dignity of the poor and disabled are his crowning achievements…and
the positive legacy he left to us.” This is too, where Jesus
supercedes his culture and times dramatically. The Essenes and
Qumran (those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls) saw themselves as
a people apart and as more righteous, conducting special purification
rituals and having dogmatic beliefs about who and what was unclean
and undesirable. Scholars believe there is a strong connection
between these people and Jesus, indicating a line of tradition
from those groups to the early Christians (the Dead Sea scrolls
speak of at least two messiahs). But one major rift in the connection
is those peoples’ ostracizing of the sick or deformed as
impure and be distanced from and that of Jesus who went out among
the outcasts and afflicted.
So in conclusion, Jeremy said that the picture of Jesus that emerges
upon critical examination is not the superficial one touted in
popular culture but a more complex individual. He sought out and
had feeling for the poor and sick and told his followers to treat
even their enemies kindly but was also a man of his time and place
regarding many prejudices and beliefs of his society and who had
a vengeful attitude to those who opposed him and a nightmarish
view of the future. Crow thoughtfully made mention not just of
the context of Jesus in his society but of his society’s
place in the larger world—where they felt threatened by
powers and changes beyond their control. The attitudes become
more comprehensible in this larger view.
In the Q&A portion of this presentation, it was mentioned
that Jesus cannot be regarded as an especially noteworthy philosopher
(George W. Bush’s assessment notwithstanding) in that there
was nothing unique to him in his sayings. They are borrowed from
older rabbinical and other- source concepts.
It was discussed how the most enlightened figures of one time
might fail to live up to exalted status in later times. We had
also discussed other manifestations of the WWJD symbol, such as
FROG (Fully Reliant on God) and at the outset of his talk, Jeremy
predicted that Testaments may be the next big thing in the Christian
consumer subculture. These are, he explained, little candies with
scripture verses printed on the inside of the wrappers. Someone
quipped that he had once seen a take off on the WWJD that asked
“What Would Scooby Doo?”
Secretary: Charles LaRue
|
