act5367

It's very possible that we are living in "the last days," but this has nothing to do with alleged prophecies in, e.g., Revelation. Rather, it has to do with the fact that since 1750 humans (Western ones in particular) have been pouring greenhouse gases such a carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, resulting in a variety of phenomena collectively termed "global warming." For several decades now Dr. Charles Keeling and staff have been collecting data (in Hawaii) on carbon dioxide concentration, and have found that both of the last years for which data are complete have shown an increase in the RATE of increase. WHY the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing is clear: human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (including while driving to church!). The CONSEQUENCES? If Dr. James Lovelock (former NASA scientist) is correct that the earth behaves like a system, this means that the earth has been using negative feedback mechanisms to "fight" warming. However, the most recent evidence from Hawaii suggests that Earth System may have reached a threshold, and "given up"--with positive feedback mechanisms now replacing the negative ones. If THAT has happened, this could very well mean that we are living in the "last days," and that (1) it is too late to reverse the trend, (2) our species (along with many others) soon could become extinct (certainly within the century), and (3) Biblical "prophecy" is not involved here--except that those who believe in it are helping to bring about the end. Such people are in the process of committing the greatest conceivable crime against humanity--and our Creator!--and yet are not recognized a criminals! They are far more of a threat to us than are any terrorists, for they threaten the species itself. A recent scientific report argued that if the global mean rises to 2 degrees C above what it was in 1750, the consequences are likely to be unpredictable, but could be catastrophic. Given that we've already reached 0.8 degrees, we are nearly half way there, and these scientists believe that the 2 degree mark could be reached within 10 years. YES, 10 YEARS!! I have argued elsewhere (in an unpublished paper) that our only chance for "salvation" lies in societal system change of the right sort here and elsewhere; and back in 1984 I published a strategy for achieving societal system change. Unfortunately, I have lacked the resources to do anything about my "plans," and being now 65 may never have the opportunity to do anything about them--especially if 2115 marks a watershed. We are not used to think in terms of societal change, but had we been living in the 1800s this would have been a commonplace topic. For example, Horace Greeley was publicizing Charles Fourier's ideas on the subject, there were many "intentional communities" being created (e.g., the Shakers, Amana, Oneida, etc.), and literally dozens of "utopian" novels were published (Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward being simply one of many). Christians need to learn one of the many messages of Jesus's Good Samaritan parable: God works through people, acting in accord with his law of love. We need to begin doing something about greenhouse gases, and doing it fast; else, we humans may very well be doomed. And our churches will rot away, for lack of anyone to attend them and care for them.

When I posted my piece (under act5367), I was not aware of the Harpur book. After BrotherInChrist has finished reading it, I hope that he posts a review of it. Besides Ulansey’s forthcoming book, there is another related one, I’ve discovered: The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief that Shaped the Christian World, by Payam Nabarz (due out in July, published by Inner Traditions International). Thus, it appears that we are finally getting some valuable information pertinent to Christianity’s origins. I was first exposed to the possibility that Christianity had its origins in the Mysteries about 25 years ago. Since then, I have been searching for more information, but little has been available. Six years ago Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy published their The Jesus Mysteries–a book that contains a wealth of valuable material, but is marred by their strange thesis that Jesus never existed! The books that are now coming out may help clarify matters. I think it useful to distinguish between Christians and Jesuans in thinking about the early period (which may reflect the fact that I spent my teen years attending a Conservative Baptist church with my parents). Those early groups that attempted to continue Jesus’s ministry/religion I refer to as Jesuans; because different individuals arrived at different interpretations, different Jesuan groups arose. Groups that, rather, developed religions that emphasized beliefs about Jesus I refer to as Christians. (I assume that rituals were developed by both Jesuans and Christians, with each developing its own rituals.) I would add that what the various Christian groups did was to take stories associated with the Mysteries, and use them as the basis for developing theologies with Jesus as the center; this is where the concepts of virgin birth, savior, resurrection, etc. came from. But although the Mysteries themselves had not been belief oriented and, instead, had had an experiential orientation, few if any of the Christian groups developed such an orientation. Rather, their orientation was to correct belief and ritual related to elements of that belief. Needless to say, given that we now know a few things about some of the early groups (Ebionites, people of Q, Naassenes, etc.), it is obvious that the book of Acts has little historical value. (By the way, I am currently reading a book on the Naassenes by Mark Gaffney.) A question that arises is when did Christian groups arise relative to Jesuan ones. Burton Mack (in his Who Wrote the New Testament?) suggests (see his chart on p. 311) that the initial “christ cult” group developed from a Gospel of Thomas group in northern Syria. I, however, lean toward the possibility that Christian and Jesuan groups developed at about the same time. I would hypothesize, e.g., that some Jewish Theraputae from Alexandria were present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and, hearing rumors of Jesus’s “appearances,” interpreted this as a resurrection–an idea common to virtually all of the Mysteries. They then hit on the idea of creating a Jewish Mystery which, being based on a real person, would have the chance of spreading rapidly–attracting not only pagans, but Jews, thereby erasing barriers between the two groups. My ideas here are, of course, purely speculative, but–who knows–perhaps they will turn out to have some merit.

Kirkpatrick Sale, in his "Imperial Entropy: Collapse of the American Empire" (on the www.counterpunch.org site, Feb 22, 2005) notes that environmental degration (in terms of global warming) will mean not only the end of empire, but "maybe [the] end of civilization." He could have gone further by saying the end of our species (along with many others). For the rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentration is now itself increasing, and that is indeed a scary phenomenon. Unfortunately, as Sales says in closing his article, the values that have made the U. S. what it is are one that we will not abandon--meaning that there is no hope for us humans. My own view is that the only answer to most of our problems is societal system change. I see this as possible (indeed, in 1984 I published a strategy for bringing about such change), but not as likely. For humans are the stupidest of the intelligent species, and don't have the sense to see the "handwriting on the wall"--until it's too late.

Why is the "evangelical" label appealing to many? I have come to conclude that Psychology has little to offer in understanding why people do what they do (in large part because psychologists tend to be part of the System, and therefore are merely apologists for it, unawares usually). And that if we wish to understand human behavior, we need to take a sociological approach. Much of Sociology is also apologetic in nature (which is to say that sociologists, also, tend to be prostitutes), but some sociologists have developed the valuable idea that much observable behavior is of a compensatory nature. The idea here is that we humans, as humans, have certain innate needs/drives, these were satisfied prior to the Agricultural Revolution (because ways of life and humans as biological entities had co-developed up to that point), but that the Agricultural Revolution marked a crucial point in human histor--because thenceforth human biology continued as it had been, but ways of life became ever less "natural." This growing discrepancy, one can argue, is at the root of humankind's problems since them, although not necessarily the direct cause. The more direct cause is the rise of a mentality of competitive individualism in conjunction with the rise of modern economies (capitalistic or otherwise). Such societies, by their very nature, create large numbers of 'losers," so that many (if not most) members of such societies are motivated to engage in compensatory behavior. (There is an excellent discussion of this by a McKinley, but I can't remember his first name, nor the title of his book.) This can manifest itself in a great variety of ways so that, e.g., one person may compensate by turning to alcohol, another by becoming an "evangelical Christian." This leaves open, of course, the question of why it is that one person becomes an alcoholic whereas his neighbor becomes an evangelical. I should note that rather than using the term "compensatory behavior" I prefer "substitutionary behavior," for behavior that is allegedly compensatory rarely, if ever, truly compensates for the need/drive deprivation that has motivated it. Psychologists might offer a different explanation for the evangelical phenomenon, but because such people tend to be simply part of the Existing Order I have little regard for their views. The same goes for most Sociologists, for that matter (and certainly for most Economists!).

Do I regard Jesus as a/my savior? Jack Miles has identified a whole series of concepts of God in the Hebrew Bible, but the distinction that I find most meaningful is the Master/Servant dichotomy. If one regards God as one's Master, one will ask: "What can/should I do for God?" Many Jews and Christians would respond that the answer is found in the Bible--e.g., the Law of the Hebrew Bible, the law of love implicit in the Good Samaritan parable, revelation etc. If one regards God as one's Servant, one will ask: "What can/should God do for me?" And petitionary prayer is associated with this stance. Note that to speak of Jesus as a Savior is to perceive him as a being who does things for people, so that one makes a Servant of Jesus. In effect, Jesus becomes a "cosmic bellhop" (as someone once said regarding a concept of God). The Master concept of God involves respect/reverence for God; the Servant concept of God is blasphemous. Given the association of the Savior concept with the Servant concept, it also is blasphemous. Needless to say, I do not regard Jesus as a/my savior! Evidently Christianity borrowed the savior concept (as it borrowed most of its theology) from the Mysteries that were popular throughout the Mediterranean Basin during Jesus's day. What Christianity did was to take various ideas from stories associated with Mysteries (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) and make them into a theology with Jesus at the center. I am looking forward to David Ulansey's forthcoming book on Mithraism and the development of Christianity, hoping that he will shed more light on this matter. One might say that Philo attempted to "paganize" Judaism, but had little impact on Judaism. And that, on the other hand, the founders of Christianity attempted to create a Judaized version of paganism, and succeeded. Given what the founders of Christianity were trying to do, it is not surprising that Christianity emerged as a religion that had little in common with the various Jesus movements (Burton Mack has identified 6) that arose immediately after Jesus's death. For whereas the Jesus movements were attempting to continue the religion of Jesus (each developing its own interpretation), Christianity emerged as a religion basically about Jesus. Given that Jesus's orientation was clearly to orthopraxy, it is ironic that a heresy--Christianity--arose as the ostensible continuer of Jesus's religion. Why do I say a heresy? Because orthodoxy, by its very nature, is heretical in this context (given Jesus's orientation to orthopraxy). Several decades ago Charles Guignebert (in The Christ) made the astute observation that had not Christianity developed as it did, likely we would not have any knowledge of Jesus today--for the various Jesus movements would have simply died out "naturally." (As it was, they were helped to extinction by those in the the orthodox camp!) Ironically, if one values Jesus, this means that one should not regret that the initial Jesus movements all disappeared; for had not Christianity risen instead, today Jesus would not even be a footnote in any of our books.