Faith writes:
My focus has been on the psychological effect on the living of how we -- as a culture -- treat the dead
Treat people decently while they are still alive. When they are dead, it is too late.
I am reminded of an atheist tag-line/signature/bumper-sticker: "I
am Pro-Life! I believe in life after birth and before death, whereas
they only believe in life before birth and after death."
To truly treat people properly, we need to do it while they are alive, since when they are dead then it won't make any difference where it really matters, which is with the individuals involved. Of course, that almost never happens. But it is not only Christian hypocrisy (of which there is so much to go around), but also a sad commentary on almost everybody (some exceptions, but even there there will be the feeling that not enough had been done). Far too often, the "decent treatment" that people receive after they die is far more likely be due to survivors' individual guilt for how they had not done enough or what they feel they should have for the departed.
Now, on the "Christian hypocrisy" front, I have found that "true Christians" will lie, cheat, and commit heinous sins against those they simply disagree with, but that is all resolved for them. Ever see that fundamentalist Christian bumper sticker, "Not Perfect, Just Forgiven."? That's the attitude I'm talking about. Having been a fundamentalist "fellow traveler" (a McCarthy-era term for non-communists who had otherwise tainted themselves in those witch-hunts by having associated with Communists; refer to an English translation of the German play, "In der Sache J. Robert Oppenheimer") during the early 1970's, I both learned a lot about Christian fundamentalist theology (at least as was spoon-fed to the "Jesus Freak Movement" -- on this forum I had seen mention of how traditionally one had to undergo a life-long study program, but with the sudden surgence of the "Jesus Freaks" circa 1970 they now suddenly had to bring huge numbers of new members up to speed instantly, so the life-long study program was scrapped in favor of providing "Scriptural sound-bites" with not understand nor explanation, at the end taking far too many things out of context) -- half a decade prior to this experience I had stopped being a Christian because I had started to read the Bible and simply could not believe what I was reading; this experience as a "fellow traveler" very strongly cemented my atheism, since what the fundamentalists were teaching made far less sense. A side-benefit of my "fellow traveler" experience came in the late 1980's when Pat Robertson made his own Presidential bid. A reporter had asked him whether a non-Christian could be saved. His response was that if that individual had obeyed all the laws in the Bible all his life, then he would be saved. The reporter walked away satisfied, not knowing how deeply he/she had been lied to. But I had "eyes to see and ears to hear" (*), so I knew what Pat Robertson's real answer was. Part of the whole fundamentalist argument was that the Law (ie, Mosaic Law) had been given as an impossible task. Nobody could ever possibly follow the whole of the Law for all his/her life. Any single infraction would make all other efforts ineffective; hence seeking salvation bhy following the whole of the Law for one's entire life would be an impossible and futile task. It is only through Jesus, the Christ (whichever), that salvation could ever be possible. So, while Pat Robertson's answer to the reporter was that it would be possible, since I had "eyes to see and ears to hear" then I knew for a fact that his answer was, "No!"
{FOOTNOTE *:
Christianity is obviously one of countless mystery religions that had circulated in the vicinity of the Mediterranean from 300 BCE to 300 CE. One characteristic of a mystery religion was that it centered around a
mystery, a central symbolic story in a god or demi-god had performed a number of acts which somehow led to the death or execution of that god or demi-god, followed by a resurrection of some sort. By following through and reenacting the story and symbolism of that gods'/demigod's death and resurrection, you yourself personally gained part of that god's/demigod's immortality. This would very commonly involve a symbolic eating of the god's/demigod's body and/or the drinking of his/her blood. Sound at all familiar?
Another aspect of the mystery religions was the separation between the Inner Temple and the Outer Temple. The Outer Temple consisted of those services and teachings that were made available to anybody and everybody. Obviously, the whole of the Outer Temple was wrapped up in symbolic teachings and stories, none of which the outsiders could understand without having been taught what the symbolism meant.
The Inner Temple was reserved for initiates, those who were initiated into the Mystery and taught what the symbolism and stories really meant.
Mark is considered the earliest Gospel (at first, I thought of it as a "Reader's Digest" version of Matthew, since it was the same only very much condensed, but then I did read Matthew first. In Mark's presentation of the teaching of the parables, he describes them as being incomprehensible to the audience, except for "Those who have ears to hear". Mark was clearly talking about those who had already been initiated into the mysteries of what Jesus was teaching. And very explicitly, Jesus then takes his apostles aside in order to initiate them into the mysteries of Heaven and to explain to them the meanings of the parables (literally, "to throw around someone", meaning to say something that is meant to go over their heads (Drax: "Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast. I will catch it!")
Loved it when I read Mark. More so when I read it in German (actually, I had read a Gideon New Testament I had been handed before I worked in Germany one summer, twice). I also acquired a Keppler Bibel which was my first exposure to the question of the short and long endings of Mark. }
To reiterate, a "true Christian" will very willingly sin most heinously against any and all other persons. But then should his/her actions ever cause them to pause, then they will reflect upon their imperfection. From fundamentalists, I would often hear of their human imperfections, including that they would inevitably stumble and fall. And what would happen then? Well, stumbling and falling is inevitable, to be expected. Whenever that would happen, they would simply ask Jesus for forgiveness. And like any other invisible friend (unless you happen to have some very serious psychological problems), Jesus would invariably forgive you automatically without you ever needing to receive any kind of confirmation communiqu; you just
knew it.
So what about the person you had sinned against? You had done damage to that person. Jesus had forgiven you (what kind of invisible friend would ever do otherwise?), so you're cool, and yet the person you had so grievously wronged is still dissatisfied. OK, he's not a believer, so who would ever possibly care?
That is "true believer" fantasy land. The true believer sins against an outsider. In reality, that creates very real damage. The true believer asks for and gains absolution from his/her "invisible friend" and that is good enough for him/her. In the meantime, the damage that sin had created still exists, unresolved and potentially festering.
At the same time, we have what Faith had said:
Faith writes:
My focus has been on the psychological effect on the living of how we -- as a culture -- treat the dead
I am truly astounded at the sudden and unexpected grasp of morality that Faith has so suddenly realized. I could never have scarsely imagined any "true Christian"of being able to even begin to understand morality.
™ Version 4.2
