by his
appearances
in the
Old Testament
then he is a sacrament
of
self-involvement,
the progenitor
of
profit seeking pillage,
and the
earliest indited excuse
for
exceptionalism,
enslavement,
and
privilege.
in short this god
that rises in wrath
from the tribal tallies
of
chattel,
concubines,
and carnage
is the
embodiment of evil
and the bad example
par excellence.
*
if God can be understood
from the proscriptions
ascribed to him
by the apostle Paul
then his existence essentially,
conveniently
and
coincidentally
provides
the
self-fulfilling justifications
for the
projected self hate
of that
misogynistic closet case,
and the
rabidly reactionary
and
ranting religious right.
Poor Paul!
his nanny
must have abused him
while wearing
a red dress.
*
if God can be understood
from his appearances
as
"only begotten son"
found in the
Holy-See-sanctioned Gospels™
then his existence
posits more questions
than it answers.
for why does it matter
that Joseph carried the genes
passed down
in all those
blessed begettings
from the loins of Abraham
and
conquering King David
if he wasn't really
the father of Jesus?
or are we to take that
as metaphor?
and while we're
on the
subject of begetting,
who did Adam and Eve's children
do their begetting with
and from whence did they come?
*
and what of the
adultery
between this god and Mary?
it's true that the Greeks
looked the other way
when Zeus and Apollo
knocked up
their earthbound wenches
but no one thought of calling
unwed mothers
holy virgins™
back then.
that was certainly
a brilliant stroke
in the early annals
of public relations.
but still
this adultery broke
one of his own
commandments.
if this god can be forgiven
for violating
the holy vows of matrimony
then why not
extend such
compassionate understanding
to those
purportedly created
in his image?
for whether Mary
or anyone else
declared her paramour
a god,
or a succubus,
or a thief in the night
is surely beside the point.
each gave birth
to a child,
which is to say
to a sacredness
always
evident
in
every
life.
*
the sanctioned narrative
has it that
this god
absolved all the sins of mankind,
surely numbering
in the hundreds of trillions,
including genocides,
and infanticides,
and the purposeful
spreading of diseases,
and wholesale
destruction of cultures,
and rape and pillage
of the earth itself,
with one simple crucifixion
that lasted
only
three hours.
one
out of the
thousands of crucifixions,
and other more horrible
and
lingering deaths,
meted out
in that year alone
mostly to innocent people
who had no one
waiting
for them
and no tomb to go to
with
or
without
a revolving door.
*
the sanctioned narrative
would have us believe
that Jesus was both
his father
and himself
and completely without sin
and that only
his own
immaculate death
could bring about forgiveness.
so this god
who had
created
all of existence,
this perfect being
who
somehow
managed
to
create imperfect ones,
having grown displeased
with his creations
(doubtless for their imperfections)
masqueraded
as one of them
in order to
enable
his death
at their hands
so he could
find the
wherewithal in his heart
to forgive them everything else?
these self-imposed
limitations
and lapses in logic
cry out for psychological analysis.
but then a voice
in a burning bush
claiming to be
an
omnipotent being
and
sole progenitor
of
the universe
that displays such a
desperate need
to be worshiped,
while forbidding the worship
of other gods
and
simultaneously
denying
their
existence
has no dearth
of self-image issues
and conflicts
to resolve.
*
the failure of the commandments
to require honesty
is
quite telling.
but the missed opportunity
of forbidding war
is not to be
wondered at
in a god who so carefully
allotted the
women and children
to be
granted in slavery
to his
"chosen" victors,
and those to be
summarily
eliminated,
as they wiped out
all traces
of their neighbors,
providing the precedent
for the occupation of Palestine.
*
and what did the
sacrifice
and
reanimation
of
Jesus change?
has mankind stopped sinning?
is the earth no longer
ravaged by greed?
have children
stopped
stepping
on
land mines?
has the wholesale destruction
of
human life
relentlessly demanded
by
corporate interests
and so
expertly excused
by the media
come to an end?
or did the
righteous
god-fearing folk
simply take this to mean
that their covenant
with their
strange
and
vengeful god
could only be achieved
through the
murder
of
holy innocents?
is that how they
have been justifying
their terror-laden tradition
of laying waste
to cities
teeming with civilians
in their
state-sanctioned wars?
are they simply trying
to be
nearer
their
god?
and what of the
little children
who were surely
beaten to death
by one of their parents
on the
very day
that Jesus
was crucified?
were none of them innocent?
did none of their
sacrifices
warrant salvation?
*
if you must insist
on giving
your children bibles,
please remember
to remind them
that the
whole point
of the thing
is to teach them
how not to behave.
* ******* *** ******* *** ******* *
- Evan Hawthorn, the 13th of October, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment