Was Jesus Good? Part 5

Jesus said that we shouldn't judge unless we're willing to be judged accordingly. Another translation is, "if you judge, you too will be judged," which has a slightly different meaning.

I've heard the passage time and again throughout my life. I've taken it to mean that we shouldn't judge people, that only God has that right. I've always thought it was a good thing to refrain from being critical of others. None of us know enough to truly appreciate what caused a person's bad choice or bad behavior. If an omniscient God existed, only he would know every circumstance, every factor, that precipitated sin. Even if a god did not exist, it would be wise to refrain from personal judgement whenever information is lacking concerning the offense, be it an action or a personality trait. If we could only know what others have been through, our negative assessments just might turn into real empathy. People who are obviously stupid, rude, reckless, angry, obnoxious, or conniving can be pitied. Who would really choose to be anything but perfect, blameless, and lovable? Who really wants to be unlikeable, if it were simply a matter of choice? Its not. We all have our faults, and we know how they can sometimes make our lives more painful, so we should refrain from being too critical of others.

Maybe Jesus meant all of this. Maybe he didn't. What if he just meant what he said; "don't judge, unless you're willing to be judged." Well, I'm willing to be judged. I don't think I am above criticism. If I do something stupid, it doesn't hurt me if someone says so. Or at least I should be strong and secure enough to be able to deal with it in a healthy, constructive manner. Often times its helpful to hear what other people think of us, even if its unpleasant. I would rather we be able to handle criticism AND be free to judge, than to discourage any and all scrutiny.

Judging is a product of having values and discerning how others measure up to our standards. Its difficult if not impossible to be a thinking, feeling human being and not judge the people and world around us, constantly. Even if we rid our minds of such thoughts, our senses would continue to filter out what we experience and affect our feelings based on an innate sense of what is pleasing, offensive, right, and wrong.

So is Jesus leaving it up to us? Say I don't want to be judged; then, ok, I choose to heed Jesus's advice. But really, what Christian thinks he won't be judged by the only one that matters-God himself? And who honestly thinks that God will perform the favor of silencing his critics? Either way, Jesus is being misleading. There's no escaping judgement, no matter what you do or don't do.

Jesus could have said, simply, "don't judge" or "don't think less of other people." If this is the true meaning of his words, which I'm prepared to grant (out of good will), then we have finally found a precept worthy of admiration. Thank you, Jesus!

Jesus said that we should deal with our own problems before we deal with other people's problems (my translation of the "mote in eye" verse).

I have a desire to break this one down into two parts. It would be better as #1) spend time fixing your own problems, and #2) let others fix their own problems; or, stay out of other people's business. As its written, there's the implication that we should deal with other people's problems if we have already dealt with our own. Good advice...if the individuals you're thinking of actually want the help. But not s0 great if they want to be left alone; or if they would be better served by simply helping themselves. Overall, I'd put this one in the positive column, but only because its a near tautology. Deal with problems-of course, problems are meant to be dealt with. Helping people is doing good-of course, doing good is good.

Do not let the holy to be desecrated by the unworthy.

Its been a few months since I made these plain worded translations of scriptures pulled from the Jefferson's Bible. I don't have the book in front of me, and since I'm lazy, I won't be grabbing it in order to find out the context surrounding this command. It does sound pretty simple. Say you've got something holy, like a church or temple. Don't let those who are unworthy enter it. Or say you've got a holy, uh, Bible. Don't let someone burn it, pee on it, or something. Sure. Can do. Only one problem. I don't believe anything is "holy". I know this puts me in a minority on this here planet. I'd debate the issue further, but that would take awhile. Like I said: I'm lazy.

Stay on the straight and narrow path to salvation.

Ugh. More mythology. I guess I'll give Jesus this one. I'm feeling charitable. IF (a big "if")-if a Kingdom of God existed, and in order to live there for all of eternity we had to do everything just so-in the exact manner God intended-then yes, it would be good to do so, no matter how "straight and narrow" and difficult it was to do. (kinda goes without saying)

Do not say idle words.

Why not? I'm open to the possibility that saying idle words is no bueno. Let's try to figure out why.

After a little research online, I think it would be correct to include "careless words" to the prohibited idle words. Ok, its a easier to understand why careless words are bad. Problem is, its a little too easy. What are you really saying, Jesus? I know it must be profound. After all, you're Jesus. I insist upon profundity (and apparently millions of people have insisted on it. They've taken the Old Father's Almanac of the year 100AD-Jesus's teachings-and elevated its cute sayings, stories, and little gems of wisdom to the pinnacle of moral greatness.)

Hrm. Careless. Idle. .... If a spy has a secret, it would be careless to tell the enemy. Yep. If someone doesn't have anything important or new to say, they might talk about the weather or gossip about their coworkers. Perhaps this kind of speech gets on Jesus's nerves. I can understand that. But for the life of me I cannot figure out what is so terrible about these particular words. I'm sure its the thought that counts. The thought behind the words could buy you a one way ticket to hell...if those thoughts are too damned idle or careless. Whatever.

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Finally, the one we've all been waiting for. The pearl of wisdom that essentially proves Christianity and Jesus are THE BEST. No other religion bestowed upon mankind such an all-encompassing moral precept. Uh, wait a second... Wikipedia, what do you have to say on the matter?

Statements that mirror the Golden Rule appear in ancient Egypt in the story of The Eloquent Peasant. Kidder discusses the early contributions of Confucius (551-479b.c.). Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions." According to Greg M. Epstein, "do unto others.. is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely." Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition."

So much for standing out from the crowd.

But just because Jesus isn't the maxim's sole originator or promoter doesn't take anything away from the obvious wisdom of the tract. No, it doesn't. But this might:

Let's say I see a sexy woman walking past my home (and I'm single, of course). I think to myself, "I will do unto her as I would have her do unto me" (sounds creepy, doesn't it?). So of course I run outside and give her a huge kiss. I then invite her inside so that we can quickly round second base and sprint for home. Hypothetical #2: Say its Friday and I'm in a party kind of a mood. I want to ROCK!! I think to myself, "I want to PARTAY!! I would like my neighbors to knock on my door and party down with me". Because I live by the Golden Rule, I march outside and start knocking on doors "Let's Do This Thing!" Who DOESN'T want to shake their booties on a Friday night??

There's an obvious loophole in "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." If taken too literally, misunderstandings and unpleasantries may ensue. In a way, it allows for selfish or less than empathetic behavior. Maybe a little editing would help. How about: "Using the best information available, treat others the way you think they would like to be treated"? There. A small but perfect variation of the Golden Rule. ...but not so fast.

Still, we've got the potential for grave misunderstandings. You may not have good information available. You may have no idea what the other person wants. And what about this? If we were religious zealots who took this variation of the Golden Rule seriously and literally, we would not care about our own wishes. We'd ask ourselves, "How would this person like to be treated? Oh, he'd like to jump into bed with me. He'd like to party all night long. Ok, that's what I'll do...even though I don't really even know him and I'm REALLY tired right now."

So the Golden Rule needs further modification. "Using the best information available, do to others what you think they want done, but do not compromise your own morals, cause yourself undo suffering, or neglect anything of significant personal importance. And whenever possible, ask the person what he or she would like done." Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But I dare say that in a few short paragraphs we've dramatically improved a rule that has been considered "golden" for millennia.

Before posting this I've got to say that I'm sincerely astonished at #1) the amount of nonsense and poor sense that has been revered for hundreds and thousands of years by not only Christians, but everyone... and #2) the ease of discovering the flaws in ancient wisdom if only that wisdom isn't immediately venerated and held above criticism. Free thought is a wonderful thing.