Is God really . . .

 Okay, if there is only one god (or pantheon), then why is the message so different between the religions?

I'm glad you asked.  Is the message really that different? Sure, the modern versions of each religion seem to be drastically different from one another. But let's look back at the messages of the founders of each religion; before the dogma and before later people expounded on the original message. Let's look at the truly illuminated soul and what they had to say.

Without exception, they all say that what is important is loving one another. What matters is the awareness of the universality of everything. Their messages are to bring people together. They all chastise ego-centric behavior and encourage compassion. What every great religious founder asks of their followers is to love compassionately and to act on that behavior.

So why is the theology so different? Have you ever tried to explain sex to someone? Would you describe it the same way to a five year old as you would to a 15 year old or a 35 year old? Would the analogies be the same? First off, we cater the description to the audience; not just their age, but their understanding. Examples would be based off of common cultural knowledge. If you are describing god to a child versus an adult, you would use different examples. The same goes for different cultures.

Since the goal of the teacher is to get the point across to the learner, the examples that best convey a meaning is one that the learner understands. So it goes with describing god. Different cultures use different examples. When foreign cultures hear the example, they apply their own cultural understanding of the example, which may contradict the original culture's understanding, and interpret based on what they know of the example used.

Even the examples used by someone two thousand years ago may no longer be good examples for today. If we want to know the true meaning of what was taught two thousand years ago, we need to understand the culture of that area at that time. Only then, can we glean the original speaker's intent and meaning.

God of who?

 Let's start with eliminating everything we "know" and rebuild our understanding. Let's start with a few assumptions:

• There is a god.
• God created the universe we know.

Okay, with that little bit, what do we know? Who are "God's People"? If god created Adam and Eve, then god created the first people (who would, over time, be the ancestors of the Jewish people.) Did other gods create the other people, or are Adam and Eve the first humans anywhere on the planet? If they are the first humans anywhere, then god is the god of all people, not just one group of people. Other people believe their god created all people. In order for that to be true, the one god showed up in different areas describing the creation differently. Can that be possible?

Perhaps. If we talk to a group of scientists, we would use stories and analogies that are scientific in nature. If we were to talk to a bunch of pre-schoolers, we would use different stories. Same is true if we were to talk to artists or truck drivers. The examples we would use when we talk to a group of people is going to be different. The message might be the same, but the examples and terminology would be something that would suit the audience.

It would stand to reason that a god would use different examples and phrases for different groups of people. It would stand to reason, then, that there might just be one god who created the universe and all of the people in it. We have different images of who god is because the way god talked to us is based on the language and examples we understand.

What laws, and is that all?

 James, the brother of Jesus, was asked what gentiles must do to "obey the law". What laws must a christian obey? James' reply was that gentiles, in order to obey the laws Jesus referred to, follow the Noahide Covenant. What are the laws in the covenant from the "people side" of the equation?

• the positive injunction to set up courts that justly enforce social laws
• the prohibition of blasphemy, i.e. intolerance of worshipping the one God of the universe
• the prohibition of idolatry
• the prohibitions of grave sexual immorality, such as incest and adultery
• the prohibition of murder
• the prohibition of theft
• the prohibition of eating the limb of a live animal, which is a paradigm for cruelty

Courts

Let's go through them, starting with setting up courts. This is the only item that is not a prohibition. It does not define any specific punishments for crimes against the social laws. I'm assuming this has some latitude amongst people/groups as different desires will have different effects as they are removed or applied. I'm making a pretty large leap when I say that Jesus probably expected the courts would be on the more forgiving side and only dole out the most minimal of punishments needed to have the person comply with the laws of prohibition.

Blasphemy

Think of this as behavior that is rude and intolerant of God. Simply saying "Oh, my God" when surprised is not being blasphemous. Nor is "I swear to God." On the other hand, claiming god is non-existent or that god is meaningless would be. Having a discussion where one person take the side of the non-existence of God for the purposes of gaining a better understanding of God is not blasphemous, provided the person was doing it to gain a greater understanding and clarity on god.

Idolatry

Making an image of god is not idolatry. Adoring the image or object as equal or greater than god is idolatry. Making an image to remind you to think of god is a memory device. Thinking that same object represents god or that god is somehow imbued into the object is idolatry.

Incest and Adultery

Incest is defined as having sexual intercourse (of the type that could potentially produce a baby) between a person and their close relatives (anyone who would be the bloodline offspring of any of the person's grandparents... plus the grandparents themselves). Incest also includes sexual intercourse with one's own adopted children or anyone of their bloodline offspring. So, if a cousin has an adopted child, that sex with the adopted child would not be an act of incest.

Adultery is defined as a married person having sexual intercourse with a person other than their own spouse. Note, two unmarried people having sex is not adultery.

Murder

 The intentional killing of another human being is murder. Behaviors what the person could reasonably predict has a noteworthy probability of another person dying would be a grey area, but for the purpose of this list, would be included.

Theft

Taking something that does not belong to you, thereby denying the owner the right to enjoy it is theft. Borrowing something without permission and willingly returning it in the same or better condition before it is needed/wanted by the owner is not theft. So, as an example, taking someone's car while they are asleep and getting it serviced for them would not be theft, if it is returned before they wake up or need to drive anywhere.

Eating live animals

Removing a body part of a living animal, simply to eat it is cruel to the animal.  Plants are not afforded the same consideration.

These are the Noahide laws James referred to when he said that a gentile could follow the teachings of Jesus by obeying the law. According to Jesus, simply obeying the law is not enough. Give away what you own in this world to help those in need. (See the story of the rich man in the gospel.)

So, to be the best we can be, we must obey the laws listed above AND actively help those in need.

What's with the fear?

 I've been taught that God is a loving, personal god. People who describe their near-death experiences refer to a pervasive love. If that is so, then why do the leaders of the faith use fear and threats to demand conformity? "If you don't believe in Jesus, then you go to hell - forever." "You're a sinner and need to be saved." "God's vengeance will be on non-believers." "If you don't confess your sins (and do the penance), your sins will not be forgiven."

The basic process of acquiring and retaining membership seems to be:

1) acquire members... "God is love." "If you confess your belief, you will live forever." "Join us and feel included."

2) retain members... "You are a sinner and must confess if you want to go to heaven." "If you don't do what we say, God will cut you out."

What if it is more simple than all of this. What if God has created what we perceive as the universe to amuse/entertain. God truly loves what God created, and that includes everyone... not just the "faithful". Our souls, being part of the immaterial realm is outside of the physical realm (which is where time exists). Our souls will live on past our physical bodies. We don't need to be threatened by religious leaders to live on in the immaterial realm. It is part of God's creation.

So why have a religion? What do we gain by doing what God tells us to do? This universe is God's creation and God has a purpose for the whole thing. I don't know what that purpose is, but I can guess. My best guess is that God wants the universe to carry on and evolve. When we are hateful and destructive to one another, we risk destroying a part of God's creation. This is why God has revealed himself at various times to various cultures (each in a way that the culture would understand).

The message, while said in different ways at different times, comes down to the same tenets of our faith, namely: Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant.

Help. Love. Build. Coordinate. These are the things God wants for us. The things God wants us to avoid includes: selfishness, isolation, hierarchy, greed, and such. We need to spend less time threatening one another and controlling others with fear. This builds isolation instead of community.

Thoughts and Prayers

 The OED says "sympathy" is: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Whereas, it defines "empathy" as: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I have always divided them by how much intellectual versus emotional connection a person has for the other person.

Compassion, on the other hand, involves taking action on those feelings of sympathy and empathy in an effort to relieve the person.

While "thoughts and prayers" is technically an action, it is the very least action imaginable. Thoughts and prayers are really nothing more than washing one's hands of any effort beyond asking someone else to take care of it.

Praying to God to take care of something, which God has asked us to do, is rejecting God's request. How can we feel good about rejecting God's ask of us by simply handing the job back to God?

Occam's Razor

 What is the best analogy of God? Is God a loving, personal god that listens to and answers every prayer? Is God simply a creator who has otherwise abandoned the creation? Or, is God something in between?

Let me start out with an assumption: there is a god, or possibly at least one god. If we agree to the presumption that God created the heavens and the earth (aka the material and immaterial), then it is clear that God is outside of this universe. If that is true, then there is no proof of god we can create to prove one way or another of the existence of God. Our proofs are limited to our understanding based on the universe and not what is beyond it. We cannot measure God with material logic, for material logic is part of God's creation and not part of the realm of God. We cannot prove God exists using immaterial logic, for that too is equally limited. All we can do is simply choose to believe or not believe. I choose to believe.

I believe there is a God (or possibly more than one). That god is outside of our realm of existence. I'm not going so far as to say God doesn't interact with this realm. A person may write a message on a piece of paper. The person is not the paper, but can still interact with it.

So: God exists. God created this universe. God is able to interact with this universe. With the one main assumption, we can say a few things about God. Yes, I realize the other two statements contain some amount of assumption, but the amount of assumptions is rapidly coming to an end. For example, I can say God is able to interact with this universe because people throughout history have identified the divine involvement in a significant way. I'm willing to discount "every claim" of divine intervention as some of them could be explained away with simple natural phenomena or random chance. The fact that different cultures in widely different geographical locations all talk about a divinity and that divine being interacting with this world suggests that it is more reasonable to believe God can interact with this universe than not.

It even suggests that it has happened. Now then, does that mean God answers all our prayers? No. I'm not implying we can come to that statement yet, or ever. God can, and has, interacted with this universe? Yes. I can even go so far as to state that God has interacted with this universe in such a manner that humans have observed God's involvement. So... how frequently? Daily? I don't think so. I don't see God answering everyone's prayers. As a child, I asked God for a million dollars. I never got it. Does that mean God answered my prayer with a "no", or did God simply ignore/not hear my prayer? Either is equally likely.

Let's consider the lesson about God we can gain from both interpretations. If God said "no", then God is not really good at communication. Honestly, I asked many times with no apparent response. I would have thought that if God were to answer my prayer for a million dollars, I would expect that answer to be in a format I would understand. Imagine a grandparent talking to a teenager on the phone. The teenager is asking their grandparent to give them an expensive car for free. Would you say the grandparent is answering back if the teenager sees and hears nothing from the grandparent? What if the grandparent responds with having a cloud pass by outside the teenager's home after asking for a car. Would that be answering in a manner they teenager would understand as a response?

Then again, did God simply ignore me and my prayers? This is the more likely answer, but it doesn't address the individuals throughout history where God did answer, or more often, God contacted a person. In general, I think there is a good argument against God responding to a person's prayer/request using the laws of averages and the chance that the outcome would have happened without the prayer. But what about those times when God reached out to people?

There are not many of them, but they do seem to happen over the history of mankind. I'm lumping in all the religions as it can be argued that a religion is simply a culture's form of expression to describe a God's interaction with that culture. I'm not so shortsighted as to believe that God waited until the jews or christians to show up in a region before God began to interact with that geographical region. If God created a person who converted to "the faith", did God create that person's parents and other ancestors? If so, then wouldn't it be reasonable that God created all of mankind? Why then, would God limit his conversation to just one or two cultural groups when those people had no way to communicate God's message to the world of people? Occam's razor says that is not reasonable. Were all the non-jews and christians doing everything perfectly fine before jew and christians showed up such that God didn't need to send them a message? Did God decide to wait multiple generations of people, thousands of years, to tell another culture of people what God wanted people to know about? It is far more reasonable to suggest God talked to other cultures and people using that culture's knowledge and understanding to get the message across. Looking at the evidence of God's involvement, it seems that is is an intermittent involvement with one person at a time (or a very small segment of people).

So, where are we?  God exists (an assumption). God often does not respond to prayers. God does contact people with a message. It is not frequent (certainly not constant). We, and this universe is God's creation. It is unlikely that God created the universe to simply ignore it entirely. So, God has some interest in this universe and its outcome.

At the core of God's message, repeated to different cultures at different times, is a message to have people get along. As we say in the Church Of Doug: Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant. Why is every religion, at its heart some variation of these three tenets?

What if God created for himself a universally large Rube Goldberg machine with a godlike number of variables, including giving people some degree of free will? Consider a second analogy: imagine the universe is like a performer spinning plates on the tops of poles. The performer is trying to keep all the plates spinning so none of them fall down. If each plate was a Rube Goldberg machine and God was trying to keep them all running as long as possible, then God would go from plate to plate to give each one of them a touch on the rims to keep them spinning... or in our case God sees cultures not behaving in a manner that keeps the world of people alive and interacting and gives that culture a nudge to remind them that they need to change their behavior to match God's message, thus keeping the universe moving. God does interact with the universe when things deviate from God's desire to see the universe continue.

Yes, we are a small piece of the universe. Our existence on this one planet of this one solar system in this one galaxy . . . and we have only been in existence for a very short period of time. Perhaps part of the reason God isn't constantly with us is because there are other issues on other planets that needs God's attention too. If God made us, then we are, to some degree, part of God's plan.

This analogy would resolve the questions of what does God want from us? Why doesn't God just reveal himself to everyone at all time? Why God doesn't seem to respond to prayers (when the odds are not in favor of it happening)... and more. I'm not saying God is a child simply playing with a toy. This universe is divinely vast with an unbelievable number of variations (yet with a small set of laws of science) that we cannot comprehend God without some degree of description by use of analogy.

What can we know?

By now, I'm fairly convinced that the Pauline christianity is not the same as the way taught by Jesus. The book of James seems to conflict with Paul. The teachings of Paul conflict with the gospel accounts of what Jesus taught. Even the letters of Paul seem to be justifying why Paul disagrees with Peter and James.

Okay. So Paul is a false prophet who propagated a Hellenistic version of Judaism to gentiles using Jesus as the focal point of the Greek idea of a risen savior. I'm fine with that, because my focus is on the teachings of Jesus (Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant.) and not on the deification status of someone and how that belief is the only means of salvation. (Deification? Salvation? What did these ideas have to do with the teachings of Jesus?)

So, here is where I  have to wonder. The letters of Paul are early enough in the written works about Jesus that they are likely to have influenced later writings... such as the gospels. It is reasonably likely that the gospels were written in areas outside of Jerusalem or the communities directly associated with the original apostles picked by Jesus. (for example, the Ebonites.)

How then, can we be certain of separating the teachings of Jesus from something edited by the influence of Pauline thought? What WAS the teachings of Jesus?

The book of James appears to be more in line with a strong Jewish influence. Assuming Jesus was a Jew, his teachings would be jewish in nature. James, assuming James wrote said book (or was written by one of James' followers) is more likely to be in line with the teachings of Jesus than something from a person who never met Jesus.

Sorting out the wheat from the chaff becomes a complex endeavor.

Seek and you shall find

 I am still mulling over some of the ideas that flooded my mind since reading David Hawkins' book titled "Power versus Force". 

So, for starters, I believe in the idea of "Seek and you shall find." By which, I mean that we are subject to confirmation bias. Any given action has no specific interpretation that is universal. Any event can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, if I give my child a $10 bill for running an errand for me, did I pay her for her services rendered? Did I pay enough? Too much? Should a dependent child be given money to support the family?  Isn't that part of being a member of the family? Is cash too impersonal? Is it some form of proof that I'm teaching my child responsibility and value of work? Whatever perspective you choose to see the basic act, that act will be confirmation that what you thought you observed is what happened.

If we are a reporter of events and come across a burning building caused by an arsonist, do we look for the arsonist? Do we try to understand the arsonist's motivation? Or, like Mr. Rogers' mother, do we look for the helpers? Do we focus on how people are always present to help others in their time of need? People will see, in any event, what they seek to see.

David Hawkins' book talks about a number of things, with a focus on kinesiology (the study of human movement). While the book's focus is on that study, it observed that there are, using David's phrase, "Levels of Consciousness" that people can be categorized. I spent a fair amount of time on the table listing those levels and observed a few attributes. At the lowest level, humiliation and elimination, a person views themselves in the world so low that they feel the world would be better off without them. As a person's level of consciousness increases, they go through various stages:

• "I'm not fit for society, but not so worthless I need to be eliminated."
• "I'm worth being someone's doormat."
• "I may not be a contributing member of society, but not someone to be overlooked."
• "HEY! I exist, and deserve to be recognized!"
• "I'm here. I'm normal. I don't need people to accept my existence/value."
• "I've got enough value in myself that I'm willing to trust others."
• "I see harmony in this world and can forgive others to help promote that harmony."
• "I can do more than just forgive. I can understand other people's perspective."
• "The world is beautiful in its completeness. Everyone is part of the whole."
• "There is no such thing as everyone, because there are no parts. Rather there is just ALL."

The table (summarized in this list) has a perspective the book does not address. At the lowest and highest levels, the sense of self is non-existent, while the middle, the sense of oneself's individuality is greatest. Mind you, there is a completely different view of the 'non-self' between the highest and lowest.

Okay, so what has my mind been stuck on? "seek and you shall find"... If I choose to view the world as any of the levels, I will find proof of it wherever I look. So, why don't I simply choose the highest level and see the unity without parts? I try. Unfortunately, I have developed habits over my life that makes me see other levels unless I make a conscious decision to seek the highest level.

One side effect of knowing this (Nothing is obvious to the uninformed.), is that I can see other people and their level of consciousness. It has impacted my conversations with people as I now try to talk to them in the level they see the world. This has added a layer of complexity that I had not considered before. How do I describe something when I know the other person will only interpret/perceive it in a way I do not intend? How can I, knowing what I want to communicate, say something which presumes a perspective the other person doesn't have?

Another thought process I have been having is: why do I spend my time and energy on issues that, in the greater scheme of things is not important? For example, if I believe global warming is counter productive to humanity's current way of living, what do I do? Do I stand up and encourage change: either to reduce global warming or to build solutions to adapt to it? Or, do I simply take a more "enlightened" perspective and realize it is part of the greater whole and is simply part of the big picture... Human's are only one of a series of creatures who have ruled the earth. We are not going to be the only one in the future. Be at peace with knowing that humans are not separate from the whole, but simply a piece of God's overall plan... Just an indistinguishable perspective of the oneness of all... For that matter, why should I care about who is going to run this country?

Should I pray for something?

 Under the category of "Things to Ponder" . . . 

I believe in the power of prayer. It is a great tool for communicating with the divine. It also helps me focus on what is important and gives me the motivation to move. I am forever humbled by the power of the great creator of the universe and all that is within. Prayer has power.

With that in mind, I firmly believe prayer is not a tool to acquire things. "God, give me a million dollars." and "God, make me healthy (or smart)." This is not the role of prayer. Looking at the time Jesus spent in meditation and prayer following his baptism shows that even Jesus understood prayer was not to make God do our bidding. The correct order is the other way around. Prayer and meditation is our way to understand what God wants us to do for God. When we understand that relationship, we are more able to live according to the will and message of God.

So, what should I do when someone in need asks only that I pray for them in their time of need? There is nothing else I can do for them. I do not live nearby. I do not have the skills they need to take care of them. I do not have anything for them except my thoughts.

What they need is comfort. What I need for myself is a resolution to the unknown outcome for that someone. They don't have time to waste on me and I don't want to distract them from the chores and duties they need to complete before they undergo a hardship with an unknown outcome. They will feel comforted if I pray for them. It is something I can do.

I will not lie to them and say "Yes, I will pray for you.", but then do not do so because I don't believe that is the purpose of prayer. That would be hypocrisy and worse than asking God to do my bidding. So, in the end, I will pray to the great architect of the universe and say:

Dear God. Thank you for this beautiful creation and for giving me the awareness to appreciate all that I can sense. It is with what you have done for me that I can appreciate the beauty and glory of you and your creation. While it is your design that the future will unfold in its due time, I cannot help but feel the stress of the unknown. So it is with my friend. Their future is unknown and they fear the potential consequences as they have already experienced. Help me understand what you have given me to help comfort them in their time of need. My friend is struggling with their unknown future and needs compassion that they may once again be able to focus on glorifying you.

I feel the fear and concern of my friend. Will this upcoming event turn out the same as before? Will they need to suffer again? Such thoughts pull us from our desired focus of doing God's will and living as a humble servant. For how can we look to helping others when our own selves need the help? For this, I am reminded of what Jesus taught about the lilies of the field. 

I am also reminded of the value of worry. We worry when we foresee something that could go wrong with something we care about and we are powerless to prevent or protect it. What worry tells us is that we care about that something. Be cheered by knowing that we have something we care about and what that something is. Then, like the lilies of the field, trust God to already have a plan. Be ready to live God's plan.

Thy will be done.

Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion

 I've thought of sympathy and empathy before. Lately, I've enhanced my perspective and added compassion to the mix.

I recall, years ago, looking up 'sympathy' and 'empathy' in the dictionary and seeing them defined opposite of how I used those two words. On researching it further, I discovered different dictionaries had different views of the two words. Go look back at my thoughts from back then and you can catch up... or simply go with the following definitions:

Sympathy is the intellectual understanding of another person's plight or situation. I may have never experienced what you are experiencing or anything similar, but from what you have said or shown, I can sympathize with you. I can understand what you are going through.

Empathy is the emotional understanding of another person's plight or situation and is based on an experiential memory. I empathize with people who are going through something I have or am currently experiencing myself.

In many ways, they are interchangeable. We take the time to relate to the other person's situation. Yes, they differ based on how we are connected - by memory or intellectual description. Yet, in the end, we are connecting with the person.

Now, let's go off on a tangent. Compassion. Compassion is about having either sympathy or empathy for another person and acting on that feeling to help the person we are connecting with. Compassion is an active behavior motivated by either sympathy or empathy.

There is a huge divide between compassion and the first two emotions (sympathy and empathy). Both sympathy and empathy are inwardly focused. We may tell someone we are sympathetic, and in doing so, we are asking them to look at us and our state. These emotions are more of a "Look at me. I am the same as you." type of response. Yes, there might be a "you are not alone" element, but in the end, you're not alone because I am there with you.

Sympathy and empathy are self-focused in nature. Compassion is focused on the other person. With compassion, we use our understanding (via sympathy or empathy) to motivate ourselves to act for the good of the other person. Our role is diminished in favor of the other person's outcome and relief. With compassion, sympathy/empathy is a motivator and driver. It is not the focus.

In the end, let's be compassionate.

The Bible is a Library

 The bible is a library, and the librarian has a strong bias as to which books to put on the library shelves. It is not one book, but a collection of books. It clearly has more than one author, with some of the book's authors named in some fashion. Not everything in the bible are books. Some of the documents are letters from different writers. In the end, it is a set of written documents collected between two covers. In essence, like a library (which is a collection of documents contained within a structure), the bible is a collection housed in a binding we call the 'holy bible'.

I mentioned a librarian. In the early days, there were a number of different libraries. However, in the year 397, one librarian, with the help of that librarian's board of directors, tore down any other library so their own library would be the only one people could come to. I've always said there are two ways to climb the ladder of success. One method is to employ strength and endurance to lift oneself up each rung until reaching the top. The other method is to pull others off their ladders so you look higher up than anyone else. It seems, with all the talk of heresy and such, the "catholic" church employed the second method. While Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 defined the list of 27 acceptable books for inclusion in the canon (read: library), it took a couple councils to affirm that list. (see: the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.) 

Athanasius' list appears to be based on four general criteria.

• Apostolic authorship
• Widespread usage
• Theological consistency
• Unity with Hebrew scriptures

Let's take a look at each of them. Like many early Christian leaders, Athanasius likely considered apostolic authorship or association as an important criterion for inclusion in the canon. Books believed to have been written by apostles or those closely associated with them were highly regarded and considered authoritative. This criterion would have favored the inclusion of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the letters of the apostles, such as Paul, Peter, and John. It would have ignored many documents which were not making claims of apostolic authors.

It is reasonable to believe that the apostles were relatively uneducated fishermen and similar locals who lived near Jesus. To claim they became educated authors in Greek is a bit of a stretch. It is far more reasonable to assume learned people took the stories and teachings handed down to them and wrote them decades later.

"Widespread usage" needs some definition. This is widespread as defined by the librarian. A document that has widespread usage in Jerusalem may not have widespread usage in Alexandria. Athanasius was a Bishop in Egypt. While it would be reasonable that Athanasius communicated with other bishops in the roman imperial provinces of the fourth century, that interaction would be limited to similar thinking churches.

Based on the books included versus excluded, it is clear that Athanasius had a theological assumption integrated into his choices. He clearly favored Pauline theology over the teachings of James. He was strongly against anything that hinted at a pro-Arian stance. (This is reasonable considering he was exiled from his bishopric multiple times for defying Arian theology.)

By "theological consistency", it is meant that Athanasius ignored any teaching or book that did not conform to the theological story Athanasius wanted to present. The bible is not a compendium of the variations of belief seen throughout the world. Instead, it is a single view held by a collection of groups. Unfortunately, I see the subjectivity of view to be a weakness and not a strength. Considering the variety of ways people professed their faith in the newly forming religion, to say one perspective is right and all others are wrong makes it too likely that the professed perspective is not a complete and whole understanding.

Early Christian communities recognized the continuity and connection between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the emerging Christian writings. The books that maintained a connection to the Hebrew Scriptures and demonstrated a fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic tradition were more likely to be included. This criterion would have influenced the inclusion of the Gospels and Acts, as they presented Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies.

So, if these criteria are not met, then Athanasius did not include the writing into his "library". Was Athanasius biased? Well, he was exiled from his position on more than one occasion for having a viewpoint that did not conform to the general beliefs of the time and place. His nicname "Athanasius contra mundum," suggests he was more on his own than a representative of the general understanding held by people of the time.

So, in the end, the bible is really a library of books assembled by Athanasius as his personal viewpoint which stood in direct conflict with the general understanding of the christian theology of its day. It is intriguing that today, it is considered the inerrant word of God. How did one person's offshoot viewpoint become the only acceptable view?

Oral vs Written Tradition - A comparison

 We are told that before the written word, knowledge was maintained using an oral tradition. The emphasis we are being persuaded to believe is that before the written word, there were oral historians who carefully remembered and transmitted that knowledge to the next generation flawlessly. Was the oral tradition better than the written system we have today?  Let's compare them.

Starting with the written history.  (Yes, it came later, but it is the one we know best.) For starters, there are problems with written history. The first one to come to mind is that living languages evolve. At the time a piece of history is written, it is typically written in a living language. That means that the written words evolve from the time they are created. Written history suffers another issue: translation. When the written word is translated to another living language, the meaning is modified because the two languages may have different meanings for the translated word. Lastly, the written word presumes the reader is not able to receive any further clarification than what is written, because the text does not offer the ability to clarify any questions the reader may have. If the written word doesn't address future questions, then it doesn't have the ability to respond or clarify the future reader's questions.

Which is a major strength of the oral tradition method of conveying history. If the listener (receiver) has a question, the authoritative person can clarify the message. The other side of this positive is that the person conveying the history, when asked questions that are not directly covered by what they were taught will need to provide their own interpretation to answer the question.

There is an assumption by modern people that the oral tradition was carefully taught and repeated so that nothing would change. That would require a certain level of skill in each person to stay faithful to what the person before them transmitted. Their ego would have to be removed entirely from material being transmitted. Such an ability is a learned skill which is not completely learned by anyone. It certainly would not be a skill of an ordinary person (which explains why there were "professional" story tellers in pre-literate societies.)

In the end, unless the person writing the history is present at the event and is writing then and there (such as a court stenographer), there is some degree of oral tradition in every written document. This is even more true if the writer is not a direct witness. It would seem to me that neither written or oral history is free of issues.

Now, consider the Christian Bible. The earliest known documents are presumed to be written decades after the event by someone who wasn't present for them. The written copies we have are copies of copies, involving translations.

In general, the people who witnessed the acts and words of Jesus were not professional historians. The people they told their experiences to were not trained to present the material with clarity or accuracy. Instead, it was a group of individuals independently telling their friends and people they met the exciting things they recalled (however accurately). Those people then passed the exciting parts of what they heard on to others. (Why talk about the boring stuff...  So, already we have some warping of the overall picture.) Since each person perceives what they do based on the filters they have developed, and interprets what they see based on how they filter the information that comes to them, the stories morph into things that no longer capture the whole message, but rather the various transmitter's perception of what was the exciting or newsworthy elements of the original story. Once it gets translated into other languages, more meaning is lost due to the impact of different languages not having a direct one-to-one relationship between words. Write it down in a living language and now the language departs from the original meaning to wherever the language takes it.

For example: does the word "virgin" mean "never had sex"? Can a person have anal sex and still be a virgin? Is it possible to have sex outside of marriage? Now imagine if a culture had a taboo about sex before marriage, does that mean nobody has sex before marriage? Is a taboo behavior something everyone stays away from? Now then, what if the word "virgin" simply means "a young woman before marriage." Yes, tradition and taboo suggest the virgin has never had sex, since doing so would be breaking a taboo or tradition. But can that always be true? If the word simply means young (pre-marriage), does that mean we can substitute the meaning of "young" with "never had sex"?

When we apply this idea to Mary, it is more complicated. She was betrothed when she got pregnant. Betrothal in ancient Jewish culture was a legally binding commitment preceding marriage. It involved a period of waiting and preparation before the actual marriage ceremony took place. During this period, they would often undergo various rites, rituals, and preparations, such as completing the necessary legal requirements, assembling a dowry or bride price, and making arrangements for the wedding ceremony. As a virgin, we can assume she was young. But if she is already that committed to Joseph, can we be certain she didn't have sex with Joseph? If you say you can be certain because the Bible says she was a virgin, then I would agree, she was young... period. The extra words added in were added during the oral tradition that took place over the decades.  Remember, none of the apostles (assuming they even wrote the gospels attributed to their names) were present during the nine months prior to the birth of Jesus. ... And before the death of Jesus, would his mother, Mary, admit to being sexually promiscuous prior to her marriage? (Hi... I committed taboo activities...) Even if she did, would the people relating the stories of Jesus want to say she had performed taboos that resulted in the birth of their messiah?

If I told you a story and you passed it on to another person (remember, most of the people passing stories of Jesus were not trained professional oral-tradition story tellers), would you mention the boring stuff? If you really loved me and thought I was the greatest person, would you want others to know of my faults and failures? Would you gloss over my faults to highlight the reasons you think I'm great?

I'm not sure either process, written or oral, for transmitting knowledge, is better than the other. Combine them and the quality of the story degrades significantly. It makes me wonder how well my ideas will survive the future.

Our view dictates our reaction and behaviors

 I've been reading a book titled "Power vs Force" by David R. Hawkins. The book is about applying kinesiology to consciousness. Some of the ideas presented in the book got me thinking about something I've always known: our filters dictate our responses. This book confirmed it for me and expanded on my thoughts further. It also went off in directions that didn't matter as much to me.

But, for the part that did get me thinking, I've been drawn back to it time and time again these last few weeks. As individuals, we grow up with a set of experiences and attitudes that shape how we feel about the world/god/cosmos. That, in turn, is our filter we use when we experience things. For example, if we hold a world view that everything is vindictive/evil, we are more likely to use blame to avoid punishments we assume will follow. On the other hand, if we perceive the world as wise and meaningful, we will instead look at the same event and search for the meaning behind it. The event is the same. Our reaction differs based on our basic world view.

I was listening to a person tell me how she sees herself as a vile monster, unworthy of kindness or experiencing nice things. When she sees something nice/kind, she feels that either someone screwed up and accidentally let her see it or it is the thin wrapping of a greater horror. Her response to hearing positive things said about her is to reject both the message and messenger. Since she doesn't feel she is entitled to kindness, any kindness directed at her reminds her that it wasn't intended for her. My heart and soul goes out to her, yet I cannot think of a way to get my message of love and compassion across.

I have also been listening to people lately with an ear for their emotional reaction or the thought process they seem to use. One intriguing awareness I'm discovering is that people repeat their thought patterns regularly over multiple sessions. In other words, while a given response may differ, the typical response a given person will give to any topic will be based on the same world view/filter.

So, if we can change a person's view, can we change their reaction? That's an easy yes.  How about, if we get people to force themselves to change their reaction, would it help them change their world view/filter? I bring this up because I've been told to "fake it until you make it." Can faking it (forcing oneself to respond at a different level) bring about a change in one's perspective on life?

Recall at the start of this, I noticed people respond to the same event in different ways. Those ways are based on the filters they employ which are based on the world view they perceive. So, can we change our understanding of the world by changing how we choose to react?

The 17 categories in the book are split between one neutral viewpoint and eight viewpoints that are either inwardly focused or outwardly focused. The bottom eight (inward) are various behaviors designed to avoid pain and suffering of oneself. These include things like shame, guilt, apathy, fear, anger and pride. The object of the emotion is oneself. (I'm ashamed, or I'm afraid.) Whereas the eight outwardly focus emotions tend to be focused on others: trust, acceptance, understanding, love, peace. The book also orders them from self removal on the internal side (shame and humiliation leading to elimination of oneself) through a series of "I exist, but ignore me", to "pay attention to me", and on to acceptance of others followed by forgiveness then understanding to love. And the levels of consciousness tops out at the complete removal of the concept of self (pure consciousness and enlightenment.)

So, if there are sequential levels, perhaps we can help people by changing their filters and reaction. If regret is higher up the ladder than blame, then getting someone to stop blaming other and simply regret that things are the way they are... is that some improvement? Can we make steps in the right direction without expecting someone to jump many levels at once?

Is it our right/responsibility to make those changes? Is being comfortable in one's skin good enough? What does it mean to love someone? Is helping them out of a morass that they feel comfortable and familiar with helping? Is ignorance bliss?

I think Christians got it wrong.

 After Jesus died, the apostles, and close disciples met and prayed together for many days. It's pretty clear that they struggled with the idea that their messiah was killed. It is reasonable for them to ask themselves what significance was the death of Jesus. Why did Jesus die? Why did Jesus have to die? In other words, how can we justify the death of Jesus with Jesus being the messiah to free the Jews from the yoke which held them down? If Jesus was not a true messiah, then why were we hoodwinked into following him all this time?

Not wanting to look like fools, it is reasonable for the apostles to mold testament stories to justify them and their actions. The stories they found in the prophet Joel or the words of David could have represented anything. But by applying it to their situation, the would feel vindicated for their choices.

All they had to do was apply old stories to their present situation, without regard to if they are related. This way, they could validate themselves and their time with Jesus.

How can I determine this? Why could they not have been right and I be misguided? Well, I may likely be misguided. However, me being misguided does not clear the apostles from their questioned stance. Let's look at what they did with their "justification". Take Peter's second sermon as an example. Yes, it is prophesied that God's chosen one would suffer. The Jewish people, in general, were suffering under the yoke of the Romans. The various Jews living during the captivity of them by Assyrians, Babylonians, and others suffered too. How is it that the prophesies applied to Jesus and not any of the other Jews who suffered?

At some point, someone decided that the death of Jesus is what pays for our sins. It is the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross with frees us and grants us the salvation of life eternal with God. And with that, we jumped ship, losing the message of Jesus.

You see, someone forgot to mention that in the earliest of books about God, God created mankind by taking clay (physical stuff from this world) and breathed life (a bit of the immaterial and eternal world... heaven) into each person. That means, we already have something outside the physical dimensions of space and time (call it a soul if you wish). So, unless the death of our physical body also kills the immaterial part of us (that is outside of the physical realm of time), we are already immortal. We don't have to buy our immortality as we already have it.

We don't have to pay for it either. We don't need someone else to die for that payment. Looking at the lessons Jesus taught us in Luke to give with no expectation of return. The justification is that we should behave like God who gives to all, including sinners and the unworthy. If God gives to all without expectation of anything in return, they why must Jesus have to pay for our sins with his life?

Wouldn't this all work more in line with the message of God as taught by Jesus if we simply are given the gifts of God without Jesus paying for it with his life? Humans were already given God's breath of life from the heavens. Why can we not simply say Jesus was killed because there are people in this world who are attached to their selfish egos and possessions. They had Jesus killed because Jesus taught God's message of love unconditionally. The fact Jesus was killed doesn't diminish the message. It simply points out that there are still people who refuse to listen and live by the will of God.

We cannot change others. We can change ourselves. Let others live their lives and we will do what we can to love everyone unconditionally, to encourage diversity with all the beauty that comes from it, and to be a humble servant, helping everyone without prejudice or favoritism.

The message Jesus taught is the focus of our faith, not the results of the actions of selfish people.

Teachings of Paul

Why are none of the letters of Paul in this version of the bible? Perhaps it is because of the difficulty I face with Paul and his message.

It is clear to me that a key message of Jesus is to be humble. This message shows up time and time again. Jesus washes the feet. Jesus teaches us that whoever is first will be last. Jesus takes the role as a helper. If this is a key message of Jesus, I would expect his followers to try to exemplify the teachings of Jesus.

Yet, when I read Paul’s letters, it seems to me that Paul never got the message.  Not surprisingly. Paul never lived with Jesus nor saw Jesus in day-to-day behaviors. Paul only knows Jesus from one short vision Paul had on the road. The rest of what Paul knows about Jesus is what others told him. It appears that Paul’s vision changed Paul from being a hunter of Christians to presenting himself with the label of Christian. Paul’s ego, however, never wavered.

Consider the following examples. Paul writes “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1) He doesn’t tell people to be imitators of Jesus. No, he has to pull the focus to himself. Does he understand Jesus’ message of humility? Nope, he goes all in: (Galatians 2:20) “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Paul draws the focus to himself in the guise of telling others that when you see him (Paul), you are seeing Jesus. This is a level of ego mania I don’t see in Jesus.

I suppose I would be fine looking past the ego of the individual if the message was compatible. Jesus taught his followers and disciples to comply with what is commanded from the scribes and Pharisees who sit in the chair of Moses. However, Jesus went further to say “Do as they say, not as they do.” Jesus described the leaders as preaching what they themselves do not practice. Jesus taught his followers to treat one another as equals, with nobody better, higher, or more authoritative. “But as for you, do not be called Teacher; for only God is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters.” (Matthew 23:8). How does Paul handle this topic? Well, if you believe Paul wrote first Timothy, “I was appointed as a preacher and an apostle -I am telling the truth, I am not lying-, as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” (1 Timothy 2:7) This would mean that Paul is claiming to be God. So much for humility…again.

Love unconditionally. That is a foundational message of Jesus. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Help those who oppose you. On and on, Jesus tells us to not be judgmental. Yes, Paul writes that if someone says anything that does not agree with Paul’s words, Paul invokes God that they be under God’s curse. (Galacians 1:8)

Love unconditionally includes not being racist or sexist. Jesus never taught sexism. While the gospels seem to be thin on Jesus’ interactions with women, every story shows Jesus treating them equally. Jesus talks about his “brothers and sisters” not just his brothers. Paul is not so considerate. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is pretty harsh with many “I want…” and “I do not allow…”. Paul demands women be seen and not heard… with entire submissiveness.

Then there is the discrepancy between who goes to heaven. Jesus says only the people who do the will of God will enter heaven. (Matthew 7:21) Paul pronounces that faith alone will save you. (see Romans 10:13, Ephesians 2:8)

God’s mercy? Jesus tells us God will judge us on how we judge others. How we treat others is how God will treat us. “Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy. (Matthew 5:7) Paul, on the other hand, teaches that God will do as God pleases, and mercy, from the perspective of a human is at best random.

What I conclude from my side-by-side comparison of Jesus and Paul, they are not the same. Jesus, for the most part, practices what he preaches. Paul contradicts Jesus and tries to draw focus on Paul himself.  Why are none of the letters of Paul in this version of the bible? Perhaps it is because of the difficulty I face with Paul and his message.

Is COD deism?

I've been told I am simply a deist, someone who believes God exists, but beyond creating this world has no involvement in it. I disagree. I've been told God is involved in every aspect of every person and thing in this world at all times. I disagree. I may be wrong. Instead, I think there is a middle ground where God is most likely to be found.

Once again, it is not possible for me to know the details of God beyond what I have observed and been told. Once again, I'm going to try anyway.

I like the analogy of a child playing with a toy. Without reading too much into the concept of play or toy, the analogy has some merit.  People play with their toys in different ways depending on their goals and objectives. How they play with them says something about the person.

Imagine a collection of toys. Imagine some person made all of those toys. 

• The first toy is a stuffed animal. Imagine once the stuffed animal it made, it was tossed in a toy box and ignored from that day on. 
• Another toy is made. It is a wooden car with wheels that spin. The toy is then allowed to roll down a ramp or hill on its own as the person watches it from the starting point. 
• Now, imagine the next toy made is a doll. It also gets tossed in the toy box, but every now and then gets pulled out and played with. This toy is held in different poses and made to move in ways the person wants the toy to move in.
• Next is a ball.  The person plays with the ball by making it spin on the tip of his finger like a basketball player may do with a basketball. The person watches it carefully, observing the speed of the spin, any wobble that may happen, and anything else that might make the ball fall off their finger. On occasions, the person interacts with the spinning ball by brushing their other hand against it to add more energy to the spin to keep it going.
• Finally, a watch. The person pays attention to every gear and every dial to ensure everything is working perfectly. If a speck of dust falls on a dial, the person removes it. If a gear needs grease, the person is ready with some grease to fix the issue. Nothing escapes the ever vigilant eye of the watch maker.

The "stuffed animal" god is what I call a deist. Many christians think of god as the watch maker. My suspicion is God falls into the basketball category. God is ever vigilant on all the details, but performs actions that move the whole to the desired outcome by specific actions that impact other elements which in turn accomplishes the bigger picture. God doesn't run around doing many different tasks for individuals and their personal needs. Those needs factor into the bigger picture and may, as a element of a greater whole, be addressed using a broader stroke. The difference between the basketball and the watch is the degree of response to individual needs independent of the bigger picture.

The added spin God gives the basketball seems to be reasonably consistent. Whenever this world needs attention, the solution is for God to remind us to love one another. The message has been with teachers and prophets telling us to do so or, in some cases, risk something bad happening. Sometimes it has been to show us how beneficial loving one another is for us. Sometimes, we get a gentle spanking or scolding to remind us to change our ways. But the message seems to be consistently the same: love unconditionally.

It is one message, spoken different ways at different times to accomplish one goal. We do this by showing God we are grateful for the creation by treating it as God wants us to treat it: with love.

What does God want?

 What do we know about God?

We’ve been told there is only one god. We’ve been taught that God is a loving, personal god who listens to our prayers. We’ve described God as all powerful, all present, and all knowing. I suspect this is not the correct description of God.

Ask, and you shall receive. God is listening and answers our prayers. As a child, I asked for a million dollars. I guess I should have included “right now” in my request. In a similar vein, I know others have asked to stop their suffering and their prayers seem to be answered with equal frequency. When prayers appear to go unanswered, the proposed rationale is that God works in mysterious ways. Is God really listening? Does he answer our prayers or is the frequency of our prayers being answered closer to random chance?

Perhaps we should start with what we know about God. God created the intangible and the tangible (heaven and earth). God created light and shadows. God created land and water. God, we can say, created diversity and a spectrum of degrees between the two extremes.

God spoke to Adam and Eve. God spoke to Abraham and Moses. God did not speak to the rest of the Hebrews. It appears that God picks a person or perhaps a small handful of people at any given point in time and has that person pass along God’s message. What this tells me about God is God wants us to know something at various points in time. Since God has a messenger to spread God’s message instead of simply telling everyone all at once makes me suspect God lacks the ability to talk to everyone all at once.

Using Occam’s Razor as a guide, God does not get involved with the minutiae of the creation but has a continued interest in the creation itself. As the whole of creation is constantly changing, the more reasonable explanation for God’s continued interest is to watch the evolution of the creation. God’s occasional interaction suggests God wants something and interaction is needed to achieve that something.

Let me jump out on a limb here and suggest God wants to see how the creation will evolve and change over what we perceive as time. For the creation to collapse and end would be counter to God’s will. This would explain how various people over time have presented a message from God and why I didn’t get a million dollars as a child. God’s involvement with the creation is similar to a person spinning a ball on the tip of their finger.  Once it is spinning, it will remain spinning for some time.  Occasionally, the person needs to add a bit of energy to the spinning ball by brushing their other hand against the ball. Perhaps God needs to be slightly involved to have the creation in general do what God wants from it.

So, then, what does God want? Why does God need to talk to various people over the history of mankind? What does God need from us? If God’s goal is to keep the creation going and humans can have a huge impact on this planet, perhaps God talks to us to have us keep this planet alive and productive. Again, the answer may be hidden in what God has told Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, and others. The message is fairly consistent: Love unconditionally. The way it is presented may change and the choice of words may differ, but the underlying message is consistent. God needs us to stop discriminating against one another, to stop hurting one another, and to instead love, care, and support one another. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Why does God need us to love unconditionally? I haven’t a clue.

Why baptism?

 Baptism

Purpose: Wash away sin and to wash away the person's pre-conversion life as they transition to a "christian life".

History: John the Baptist performed the ritual before christianity began. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Jews use a mikvah for ritual cleansing.

However, we have no record of Jesus ever baptizing anyone, recommending baptism, or ensuring anyone was baptized.

Okay. Let's go through some of this. We're taught that we only have one baptism for the remission of sin.  (Remission: cancellation or forgiveness).Wash away sin? Do I have to be baptized every time I need to be cleansed of my sin or is it an act that is only done once per person?  Only once?, then why do I have to do it? Why not simply repent and ask God for forgiveness? That's all a person has to do all the other times.

Proclamation of a transition from an old life to "a life in Christ"? Isn't that "confirmation"? Do we have to transition twice?

Infant baptism? How can an infant confirm their commitment to a christian life? Or is infant baptism simply a little presumptuous for parents to give their child a bath in public?

I'm not sure baptism is all that important for someone to live their life according to God's message.

The bible is unnecessary, because...

Like Jesus, I like my collection of pithy quotes. Take for example "Nobody talks about purple polka dotted grass." It's a great statement to remind myself, and those I've discussed it with, that the person I'm referring to has been thinking of what they are discussing. Nobody talks about something that isn't on their mind.

I cannot remember the first time I used that phrase. I certainly cannot recall the comment the person made that led me to creating "purple polka dotted grass".  I'm even more certain that the person I told it to the first time has no clue I had created on the spot for that conversation. Moreover, I have no clue how often I have used the phase or how often others have mentioned it to me. I've even heard people use the phrase when talking to other people who have heard it. Moreover, I've heard people tell people of some of my pithy sayings, sometimes out of context with the original meaning (but nonetheless close enough to apply). It is clear that, even in my lifetime, people are repeating what I have said and applying it to new/similar circumstances.

I was reading the bible today and saw a number of sayings of Jesus prefaced by some situation.  That made me wonder... Was the scenario in the bible the original scenario that generated the saying or was it a later example that is simply similar? Like people twisting my words slightly to fit the new circumstance, did the evangelists of old do the same with what Jesus said? Did they even know what the original scenario or care?  Did they instead, like people around me, apply the pithy saying to a circumstance they felt it related to?

Sometimes, changing the scenario changes the impact or scope of a saying. This made me consider what would happen if I ignored the prefix/scenario and concentrated on the pithy saying alone. Would I be better off simply collecting the pithy sayings without the background story that generates it. It is reasonable to assume the background story presented in the bible could be completely unrelated to the reason Jesus created/used his pithy words. The easy answer is removing context entirely removes useful information.

Having said all of that, my mind is drawn to a Big Bang Theory television episode where it was determined that Indiana Jones was not needed for the outcome of the story, even though he was the main character of the film. Is the work I was doing having an impact on the outcome? Does the bible matter?

Consider the following questions:

Who is Jesus?  Is he:

1. Another word for God
2. The trinity, as in simply another facet of God
3. A distinct, but connected element of a holy trinity
4. Another god... perhaps a lesser god
5. Half god/half human with all the powers of god
6. Born human, but God elevated Jesus to god
7. Born human, but God elevated Jesus to a divine being (less than "god")
8. Human, but God controlled him (like a puppet)
9. Human and God spoke to Jesus, enabling him to perform god-like powers
10. Human and God inspired him, but Jesus had his own will to choose to comply
11. Human who was well informed by others (not God) about what to teach
12. Human with awareness of the sociological and ethical issues and created a solution
13. ?myth? never existed? Everything about Jesus is made up?

Question number 2. Do you believe in salvation by faith alone?

If you answered question one with anything between 1 and 8, and answered question two with a yes, then why should you care what the bible says? Why care about the pithy sayings at all? A god has told you that if you believe in them, you are saved.  What else is there? All the bible stories and commandments matter for nothing because salvation is promised by one able to grant it simply because you believe in them. Throw the bible out and get on with your life. The rest of the bible has no impact on your outcome.

On the other hand, if Jesus existed as a human (9-12) and/or salvation is through good works, then defining "good works" matters. Knowing what Jesus said is the proper behavior matters. Knowing what scenarios need to be associated to which pithy saying matters. Knowing the context matters.

Unfortunately, if my own pithy sayings are misapplied, even in my own lifetime, how can I trust Jesus' sayings would remain sacred and accurate through decades of retelling and centuries of transcriptions. Identifying what he really said and the context he said it in matters more to those who don't fall into the first group. To these followers, the bible matters.

What was it like back then?

consider the following possibility...

td,dr:

Many cultures were travelling around the eastern mediterranean around the time of Jesus.  There were three major cultures present: Greek City-State, the Roman Empire, and the Jewish Temple-State.  None of these were working efficiently at the time.

The various cultures lived in semi-isolated groups within cities trying to keep their culture/history alive.

This produces an environment of tension, bigotry and racism.  

Along came Jesus.  He was (most likely) a reformed rabbi who saw the problems caused by the cultural clashes and wanted to teach people how to get along in peace and harmony.

---------------------------------------------------

Prior to Alexander the Great, there were three models which societies would use to structure themselves. Yes, there are others, but these three are most predominate in the time of Jesus.

Let's call the first one the "Ancient Near-Eastern Temple State". Every city had its own god (maybe more) who ruled the citizens of the city. Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Judeans are familiar examples. Common in these temple-states was social stratification (power vs purity, or king and high priest) and some form of scribe would mediate between the two organizations. This was the culture of the jews before the first destruction of the temple. There was one high priest for all of Judea.

Then there was the polis or Greek City-State. The polis was a creation of the Greek spirit of independence and free thinking as well as the practical need for aristocratic clan leadership. The Hellenistic approach was to push the control of government down to the city level. Each city choose what type of government they wanted, from democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, or tyranny to name the most common. What they had in common was the sense of rejection to a large, national dictator predetermining how they are ruled.

And, of course, we cannot overlook the roman republic. This social system, based on patricians and senators, demanded order from all within their domain.

When I look at the United States, I see a similar behavior: cultures moving about and coming in contact with one another, each wanting to maintain what they have. When that interferes with another culture, conflict increases. I've often said people raise their "voice" when they don't feel heard. If someone's culture is being ignored, pushed aside, or otherwise not honored as the people of that culture expect, the tendency is to push back. In the US, we tend to deal with pockets of cultural infusion at any time.  The western mediterranean area must have been overwhelmed by all three of these cultures clashing everywhere all at once.

In the meantime, the Jewish temple state was undergoing change as well. After the hasmonean rulers attempted to integrate Greek ideas, the more "pure temple-state priests" pushed back harder. This lead to the pharisees, who wanted to push back time and integration to their more familiar world. These separatists developed schools of ethics, piety and politics based on the law of Moses to counter the changing environment leading away and towards Hellenistic practices.

This "raised voice" began to divide the Jews into those moving towards new practices and those wanting to keep their culture intacted and unchanged. Needless to say, there was a vast amount of diversity in the area at the time of Jesus.

Like the current United States, I'm certain that groups would cluster tightly together in small micro-cultures. Just as we have the chinatowns, Japan towns, little Italy, and more, people wanting to preserve their culture will band together in small tight communities. As these communities bump into one another, the chance of conflict increases. Once that conflict has gone on more than a generation, people forget what caused the conflict and simply integrate the hatred and animosity into their daily lives.

This is the world Jesus was born into. This, therefore, is the underlying world Jesus worked with as he preached a message of love. To this chaos, he taught the following three things:

1. The notion of a perfect society conceptualized as a kingdom
2. ANY individual was fit for this kingdom
3. That the kingdom should be a mix of people (ethnic, cultural, etc)

Needless to say, but this message did not sit well with people trying to enforce their cultural beliefs or even those who simply wanted everyone else to just go away.