My Christmas Story
So, what is my Christmas story? Well, Mary and Joseph had sex, and it was love, real love because they were out with their societal culture for love. You only had sex if you were married under the church, which was not called church back then because it was the temple, the Jewish temple, since the religion in Jesus’s time was Judaism. Why are the Jews criticised today by people like Labour MP Ken Livingstone and does it go back to their embrace of Mary and Joseph’s son? Probably, anti-semitism is synonymous with a distaste of societal progress, and when cultures and laws change to our discredit then we are more likely to say something anti-semitic.
If love back then was not legal, and if it was said and framed as illegal by the neighbours of those partners who laid themselves down in an act of sexual enterprise because they did not have the sexual act validated by god in a marriage ceremony, then spitting, rage, disgust and rejection would've occurred towards Mary and Joseph and then certainly towards their baby and boy by his doctors and play and school friends. They wouldn’t have liked him and would've spat on him for nothing. So a frustrated Mary and Joseph existed, but premarital sex and the ensuing pregnancy gave them isolation time to think about if there was any way out of their situation. In my opinion Mary and Joseph decided that because they had found love and relationship from sexual freedom, not hurt or disparity, then their sexual act was valid rather than impotent. Society called their child invalid and mute, but they just wanted to live their lives and bring up the baby as they saw fit.
Thinking about one thing means you think about other things, and this pair contemplated upon doctors’ neglect of non-wealthy people and government employees because at that time doctors only treated the rich plus government workers and their families. Mary and Joseph saw love as being only a people relationship, not a spiritual relationship as well, because people were matter and minerals and were not augmented by god. Necessaries sufficed as descriptions and not just as basic definitions, and they decided to teach their baby what love really was by basic definition rather than give the kid society’s view of love. They analysed their life for their next move, for the right move, for any move that they could make, for the possible moves that existed, and criminally or not, they decided to call their child Jesus Christ, which would've necessitated changing their name to the Christs.
In place at that time was an academic rebellion against society and the government regarding the boundaries of doctors, who, as I say, mostly only ever treated the rich. The academia at that time were the wise men who functioned as part of the religion Zoroastrianism, which very much believed that humankind’s behaviour and actions brought peace and harmony, that people or individuals were the hand of god, and that vouched that looking after the earth was truly man’s concern. It was humanistic. The prophets spoke for god and predicted things, just what was conceived, and the prophets were predicting a saviour from doctors who restricted themselves to only rich houses, because there were no hospitals back then. There was no linguistic for or no way to refer to these new, fairer doctors, so the prophets gave this first, more inclusive doctor a name, and that name was Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ etymologically, or by meaning, means ‘predicted saviour’. Everybody knew that this person would save them from BUPA because a kinder doctor would exist and would migrate into only moderately wealthy people’s houses and poor people’s houses to push boundaries, pushing some more traditional people’s buttons.
The history of socialism started with the French Revolution of 1789 and then took hold through the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, This intellectual description became socialist theory. So in gospel days they had no definition of socialist people power because equality was not instantiated or important. Anyone who irritated a Roman soldier in Jerusalem was imprisoned or sued, and you respected the government as today you would perhaps respect para-medics. But doctors had medical stature and power because they could make government officials well or leave them ill, so the prophets said that a people’s rebellion against medical inequality would occur starting with the doctors themselves, not by the people, because a doctor would rise up who would treat the poor.
Why am I running with the nativity story instead of wholly rejecting it as garbage, as most atheists do, by a sweary and forthright dismissal? Well, the bible is a book, and we must do something with that. Historical texts salute the scandals and triumphs of their time, so this text must be analysed for possibly making sense of its time, as historical texts do. Before you drop something for genuine rubbish, whether a book, an idea or a person, you should search it for what it might being saying, for what it says or said to somebody else, for its original sense or for what it could possibly mean. Atheists slam the bible, and that's fine if they slam today’s bible which says that Jesus is the living Lord, but the this bible which I am reading to you is in the context of historical events makes sociological sense of the people’s rebellion against the government.
Something needed to change in the land of Israel because most of the street beggars were disabled since they were untreated by doctors, being not rich enough to pay. Very many disabled people filled the paths, and the stench of blood from lacerated legs with old, home-made bandages was nauseating. Mary and Joseph wanted to teach their kid about how poor folks should have health access, and decided to bring him or her up as having a big decision to make if he became a doctor. Just as they’d been free to have sex before they married, their child would conceptually be free to treat the poor upon beginning work as a medical doctor.
Their kid was born - guess what, in a cow stable, because they were rejected as immoral - and the wise men as usual were wondering the region to find a baby whose parents wanted them blessed to become this person, Jesus Christ. There was a population census the very week of their baby’s birth, so after the wise men agreed with Mary and Joseph they could call the child Jesus Christ, they walked to the population census which was taken in a building and registered the baby as Jesus Christ. Word flew, and slowly but surely the family became assimilated and not spat on or slandered for immorality because they were really atheists, not Jews. They were certainly secondary citizens to the Jews who were valid by the temple.
If you have good sex under a star you can move that star, or I think you can. A star brought shepherds to Mary and Joseph’s baby, because he was connected to that star. Do we each have a star? Maybe not, but it is a question which can come up over 12pm chats with friends. Was this child given an in-family name, not Jesus Christ, which his close friends called him because they understood his low origins, his rebellious, low kind of conception? I know it's possible because it sounds like whenever the boy was kind spontaneously or even not popularly then his friends probably called him Jesus Christ: “Look, it's Jesus Christ” or “He’s Jesus Christ again.”
So this boy, lets call him Jesus just because we don't have any other name for him, was brought up by his immoral parents who taught him that poor people are of equal worth to rich people and so have the right to medical care, to see a doctor when they’re ill since that's right and is point square righteousness. Sex is right out with marriage, and seeing and doctor if you’re ill, not just rich as well, is right. So Jesus was brought up with morality as we know it today, which threw him into science and its mineral, chemical and physiological functions, and so as a teenager he became interested in medicine. Foundationally he was a joiner because he helped his dad make things in his shop as a child, but he chose in life to become a doctor.
Luke was his doctor friend, but Jesus chose to ignore him and treat the poor. However, you had to partly approach Jesus as well as him partly approaching you because you would be rejected by general society if you saw him, certainly by the Roman government if you were poor and undergoing medical treatment. Yes, you were spat on and cursed, cold-shouldered and ignored just because Jesus treated you or even just if you spoke to Jesus. But not by your neighbours or friends, if they were friends, who saw the difference in you as a result of Jesus meeting you and helping you get over your illness or disability. You can perhaps see where I'm going. Gradually the people validated Jesus by listening to him when he preached, and they didn't jeer or toggle a patient he’d treated. The religious wise men said that this baby was from god, giving the people a podium against the government, so the followers of Jesus believed in god. How much did god validate Jesus? Well, Jesus validated god because god can't and did not ever speak physically to validate Jesus, which not is the impression that Christians give abstractly. According to the gospels, Jesus said that god was his father, his all-knowing father, and ts is why Jesus claimed to do miracles, not human acts of science, it was because his doctoral way was just not valid by the medical profession at the time which was ultimately governmentally valid. He had walked away from Luke who visited rich people’s houses as a doctor when on his first day of practising medicine, in the early morning when him and Luke were walking into work together, he had, after the initial path, gone a different way to Luke because he was on his way to a poor man’s house whereas Luke took the normal road to the rich people’s district.
Of course after some time not every follower of Jesus could find a seat in the temple which was over-crowded, and eventually most followers couldn’t get in. So they could not say “I believe in god” to explain their behaviour in terms of their friendships and liaisons with Jesus patients and friends, they had to say “I believe in Jesus” to account for their actions and interactions, which were questioned. Tension rose and was embedded between the government, culture and the Jesus people, which came to a head when Jesus was 33 years of age.
Jesus was anonymous, his face being unknown to the government, and so a government official bribed one of Jesus close friends to point him out. Judas chose to support the government rather than the people’s rebellion, so there was not a revolution because in those days revolution would've meant replacing government structures with another framework since in gospel times the government structure had never been questioned before. Jesus was not defined, because there was no definition for what Jesus was doing. Police, firemen and taxes might’ve been banned and other things would've been mobilised, so in thinking Judas chose to uphold governmental jurisdiction by allowing Jesus to be crucified for cultivating a people uprising. I bet Judas trusted in books and historical writings which would, he trusted, in time record Jesus’ life and medical work amongst the poor because Jesus’ friends were writers. I bet that ultimately Judas believed in books and education for societal change. Something had to happen, and he had to point Jesus out, because the Roman policemen and firemen on the streets did not supervise the followers of Jesus properly, especially not his patients who were now normal having been disabled before, and these followers and patients did not pay their taxes. Jesus did not say not to pay taxes, but this happened just as a result of normal everyday life in which they were rejected as sane people.
The followers and patients were committed as in insane or insanity prone, and so Paul, a follower, said something after Jesus was crucified about being committed, or able to be sent to a mental asylum, if they existed in those days:
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.
Romans 1:27, the NIV Bible
Good thinkers could change societal norms and ideas with the stroke of a pen, and here Paul says that you’re committed if you don't do as Christ did, not if you follow him, turning the whole insanity definition on its head. You’re insane intellectually and so behaviourally if you don't uphold Jesus’s morality, not if you ignore it. Paul’s new slant on morality was about medical distribution and although practising it was considered doable it was hard because poor medicine was a Platonic utopian state and you did not flirt or stand next to a disabled person or an ill, poor person since that was not done. But Paul said that because Jesus took the first step and had done the hard work, those who intellectually believed in what he did should not commit themselves to wrongness or sin, and he uses the word committed here to say that if you've been committed for validating Jesus new morality then just think that the old morality needs committed to insanity or to an asylum, not you.
Jesus was not alive physically after his death, but was said to be by those who resented the government, and of course some very desperate people did hallucinate and hear him talk back. When you consider the nativity it’s better to think of Mary and Joseph rather than Mary and god to understand what happened, the real possible story, so as to explain Christianity and the Jesus flux. The Jesus meme today refers to the living god Jesus, whereas Jesus the man back then firstly meant doctor Jesus, and then a few centuries later meant Jesus the leader of the Christian faith which took on his last name. Parents set a child’s environment, and Jesus’s parents gave him a life away from his bastard birth by promising people that their boy would become the doctor who would be the first doctor to include the poor and commoner. Basically connected to god, because medical access for all was such a hard right to secure. It was hard to break capitalism and snobbery.
Do I really want to admit to my mind for the nativity and gospel story? Well, I am not Christian, because the faith posits that Jesus is also, or was also, the Creator god who nullifies your birth sin to Almighty god, because followers of Jesus believe that we are all born sinners. When there’s something wrong, anywhere, and it’s very serious but where not one person or group can be called guilty, then it’s healthier to say that everyone’s in the wrong rather than just certain people. This is normal problem solving behaviour for organisations with a debt or dispute, and this would've worked for securing a better deal for poor people who take ill. Politics is modelled around organisational behaviour because groups have the same dynamics whatever their size.
But Christianity offers each individual a relationship with Almighty god through Jesus who is buffed up into something he was not. Jesus only said he was related to god to validate opening medicine up to all and so it was a language statement, not a divine mechanism. That's what I have managed to work out. Christianity the religion emerged over time after Jesus came and was not in any way inaugurated by Jesus himself. Ok, to move the followers of Jesus up a step when the disabled people or ill people were being neglected medically onto a higher, more powerful plane, because Jesus had been forgotten, then you had to say that Jesus was actually god, not just related to god, because that's what I think Jesus said. I was born with Cerebral Palsy and could not use my hands for certain reasons, but when I did it was always with technology, which scared people in the seventies and eighties because technology was exclusive to intelligent engineers. So I had to justify why I'd fixed a plug or set the time on the video cassette, and to justify myself to my friends and teachers I'd just tell them who I'd most recently been talking to, ending with “…and she felt like family.” I just claimed to be related to someone high up in the school or neighbourhood, and that validated me doing whatever I'd done with my hands.
Explaining the nativity is my right, because I was confronted with it young and chose to process it by thinking it through. Intellectual analysis works once you accept that free-thinkers Mary and Joseph had a child outside of church and that a baby was not made by Mary and god as Christianity premises. Once you believe in Mary and Joseph rather than Mary and god and see where that illegitimate act of sex took the two people, then what the stars or natural laws said about them matters. Natural morality ignites the biblical text which pictures them in their culture with religion and government as forces set in placing and criminalising a free living, bastard child. It could've been any child. That is what I am trying to say. The Christmas story only relates the ordinary cultural mechanisms of the time, Israel 2000 years ago, because to be a good person back then meant believing in god as a Jew by attending the Jewish temple, so Mary and Joseph, according to the gospels, turned morality on its head by saying that their son was Jesus, who was to be god. Baby Jesus was a dumb in this story because parents are the folks who speak for babies, and they in this instance wielded all their parental rights by attributing the name Jesus Christ, who was from god, to their baby. Christianity’s muzzling of Jesus’s parents reduces it to a religion of deluded conceptions which fire the mentality up with bubbles of air which will only pop very quickly indeed.
Life for that family was a sequence of tensions and thrills pertaining to the cultural and societal forces and antagonisms. LGBT, disabled people, coloured folks and the poor understand that love is not always inbuilt into society’s structures and that you must make them move for you. People run the world, including nature and ecology, because with must stop climate change, so a sociological analysis, or people analysis, of the bible is necessary to understand it. Who was being discriminated against, who was being questioned, and who was being threatened is important. Mary and Joseph were being discriminated against as perhaps teenagers with a liberal view of morality, the rich were being questioned as having exclusive rights to see a doctor, and the government was being questioned as law and order, because Jesus redefined order. Discrimination of any kind is wrong, and stopping it changes social order. This is true for any type of discrimination and this was obvious in the quest for medical access for all, not just the rich.
Always understand the sociological reading of an historical text, because then you will understand its new definitions. The gospel gave poor people a new definition and god a new use, but the follower of Jesus was tethered to god by god being the poor person’s father, and so when you hear or watch the nativity story this Christmas time, please think twice about portioning religion with meaning because the only meaning that exists is from and between human beings. People, not structures. God as an original pop-up to humankind is a hellish view of god and is noxious because I know that god has been invented, moulded and carved by high up people over the ages. Just as god is a progressive concept, so is Jesus. The semantics of Jesus have changed over the centuries, and so as have the semantics of his followers, of believers.
You write a book, any book, by firstly writing a plan or outline. Many small books make the bible, but they are still books. The author’s reasons for a book is important both to its contemporary readers and to future readers who must, especially if it is historical non-fiction although you also get more from Jane Austen’s novels if you understand the prejudices that she was attempting to state through characterisation, and so the bible has a societal and cultural context just like any other book. Religion as a force of society is often excluded by bible readers who miss Judaism as the negative which the couple turn into a positive.
I don't believe in Jesus as he today, as the Jesus meme sits today, because I can explain where this Jesus meme came from, or what the meme is made of. The question is what was Jesus about originally? The people’s happiness, so we must continue to pursue the happiness of others as the normal people which we are as best we can. No god interacted with Mary to produce Jesus the Superman, because there was no incarnation. God did not physically or metaphysically touch Mary. There was only a boy who was brought up with true morality, love and its justification as something between two people, which was obvious to his laissez-faire sex parents. There was only guts and milage for Jesus who took a decision to be different from all the other doctors, his colleagues, to treat the poor and middle-classes, and because he became more respected and more popular than the government, the establishment killed him because the people were asking about paying taxes to him instead of the mandatory government.
No god existed for him, no divine power, when he cried in his sleep for a friend. But there was validation by saying that god believed in you if you said you believed in god, because a dual semantic exists when you savy that you believe in god since god is a non-person, in all honesty, simply since he can't physically speak or communicate. Christians say and demand that god is real even if he’s not physical, but when two people hug then that is physical because there are hormones and chemicals involved. Stating this to a Christian breaks them down until they are nothing sensible because they instantly change their gear stick into reverse.
A child’s imaginary friend is real, and must always be initially accepted by their parents, but they must mature to realise that it is better to express your feelings than to imagine that you have a personal friend, because that friend can't consent to the friendship since he or she, or they, are just a construction of the child’s mind. Being a dumb, or being recumbent in a relationship is cruel, and an imaginary friend is a construct, not a liaison of the person. I am visited by a Christian from my mum’s church every 4-6 weeks, and over time I have quickly got the feeling that she doesn't want to talk to me as much as she wants to talk to my carers. She writes on my calendar on my behalf at the end of every visit to state when she’s visiting next, but she addresses my carers on it rather than me because instead of just writing her name and the time, she writes “Visit Rhoda (Fiona)“!
It's my calendar, not my carers’, so I think this is a sin, because having been brought up in the fundamentalist church, I know Christian behaviour because my mum brought me up to be subordinate to my carers if they were semi-decent carers, which is very wrong in disability circles where you are always the boss and don't care about their desire to mother you or direct tasks. My mum burns with the desire to witness to my carers, and has a permanent, basic desire to offer them a Gideon bible or to invite them to carol or special services. Being a secondary person, a bystander in effect, when you are actually a main person interacting, is not very nice, but I think here god is a secondary person and should be said to be such. So I know what it means to be a dumb, and I think god is a dumb in this whole situation, in biblical story. Those who were on top of their culture and the goings on in Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem stated god’s leanings and validations for him, because as Georg Hegel said in The Philosophy of History 1837, history is inspired by people or individuals, by the societal leaders of the time from whatever corner or section - business, government, mothers, education, pub - because historical events occur as a result of these different people or leaders interacting together, or indeed clashing. Good relationships are based on consent, and here Jesus gave consent for god to be his father, perhaps friend, because he said he was since god is an imaginary friend, a dumb in the relationship between himself and the believer. Jesus, I think, was a full-blooded male, a brute, but a brainy, sensitive fine, strong, good looking man, whom his mum and dad brought up to be a survivor and an example to other doctors.
Christmas time for me is more about Mary and Joseph than it is about the baby Jesus and god’s divine touch upon him. A bastard child would not survive in the playground without their parents saying that god, or the temple, was with him, and they could only claim that if the magi, or wise men, said that god was indeed with him. Christmas is a time to celebrate with friends and remember that history must be understood to be a constantly changing semantic which is based on origins of trades and values, because if you don't embrace the fact that how you speak about our dead heroes will change over time then you will fail to understand the memes and societal concepts of the time. Views of a late hero will settle eventually, and whereas the achievements of Emmeline Pankhurst and Martin Luther King were obvious almost immediately, the real heroism of Jesus has not yet been understood.
Just as the god meme exists today, the Jesus meme also exists just like the disability meme exists, and to understand it you must contextualise the gospels’ Jesus in his original Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem settings. Contextualisation or interpreting the gospel text historically is not secondary to understanding Christmas or forming an opinion about Christianity, and I suspect you will totally dismiss Christianity once you accept that Mary and Joseph had sex, that not Mary did not have sex with god. Sex was not had either between Mary and a combination of Joseph plus god, as Christians customarily admit. Mary had sex with Joseph, and because this was a scandal or sin then god was their imaginary friend. God was an option for them because he was somebody whom you can claim or not, and today people still believe in god who is even advocated by Her Majesty the Queen. It was fusion back then, because the pair had real sexual dynamics together, so the pair set a new morality through their son’s work which started a new religion, Christianity. So don't believe in it, because it is wrong.
Atheism, humanism and their ignition of sociology are right because you can't go wrong when you look to yourself to find sin and unkindness or when you look to yourself to show appreciation or commendation for goodness. Appreciating or fully commending other people or yourself is right, because there is no physical hand of god. Just a hearsay one. This is not faith or Christian atheism, it is difficult atheism, because I cannot dismiss the bible as an historical work of literature, albeit existing wrongly. The bible should never have been compiled from many different smaller books and its power has got out of control because the bible today is bunk and drivel. It should never have become so big but this view works for me and has done so all my life. Cheers!
Comments