Random Jesus Talk

So man alive, I had the weirdest dream about my sister this morning--it scared the living crap outta me... About her being little still and falling down an elevator shaft. Was probably the scariest dream I've had in a long time (thankfully). Anyways, why am I telling you this? Well, because my brain is kinda unfocused at the moment because of it, so if this blog today is incoherent, that may be why.

JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS <----That's the random Jesus talk.

Kidding. Anyways, last night I talked on the phone with my friend Kristen. She's a devout Christian, and we got into an extremely lengthy conversation about this new (and WAY overhyped) The Passion of the Christ movie. Now, I have yet to see it. So I can't offer up any big critique of it or anything. So if that's what you were expecting, I'm sorry to disappoint.

What most struck me about the whole conversation was when she said "Yeah, the movie really captured what a peaceful guy Jesus was." I was intrigued by this comment, but as we had already been conversing about the movie for at least 1/2 an hour over the phone, I didn't pursue it. But what I wanted to ask her was: "How do you know what kind of guy Jesus was?"

I mean, I understand that we have the Bible to guide us (IF we believe that it truly is a work of fact rather than fiction), to give us hints and clues as to what kinda fella Jesus was and what kind of things he went through. But again and again, I find myself wondering why it is that people forget so easily that THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN, NOT GOD.



So what's my point, you're probably asking yourself.

Well, last night when I was thinking about this, my mind wandered over to the Derrida documentary I watched ever so long ago. One of the things I found so interesting in it was a brief discussion of biography/autobiography--a discussion that probably wasn't anything all that new for those familiar with Derrida and his work, but one that was new for me. This discussion clocked me in the head like an anvil, simply because I'd never really given the idea of biographies/autobiographies much thought before. Anyways, I'm not going to even try to paraphrase the ideas voiced in the movie, but I will instead ramble about the tangent my brain went off on after hearing these views.

Suddenly it dawned on me that what the hell IS a (auto)biography really? I mean, our lives are so complex and so detailed and so elaborate and so full of an infinite number of activities that how can a book attempt to capture a person's life accurately, if at all? I mean, automatically the writer has to choose what events are important and create this mere skeleton of a way more complex and beautiful life--to take on the task of really capturing a person's full life would be much too large (and impossible) a task. I mean, moments like when I fell off my bicycle in primary school in front of my grandparents' house and ripped the skin off both my knees--probably not included in my (auto)bio. The time I took over all human activity in a moment of world domination--probably included.

But our lives become filtered down in SO many ways through (auto)biography. One could never capture EVERYTHING that took place throughout the course of living--even in the case of autobiography, not even the person who did the living could capture it all themselves. Memory distorts events. So even when we talk about ourselves, we aren't getting everything right. And then, what is "right?" What is a (auto)bio SUPPOSED to include?

(Auto)biographies become just as much a work of fiction as your Da Vinci Code or your latest Stephen King novel.

So why would the Bible be any different? Here you have individuals trying to tell the story of creation, of their God, of His son. But humans cannot write without imparting their judgment or their motivations into what they're writing and they cannot write without a certain subjectivity setting in. Humans are flawed. No one would deny that. So the Bible is a translation of sorts, an interpretation of events. It is the skeletal outline (and given human error, most definitely an at-times inaccurate one) of what took place long ago.

But how much do we take to be the truth? How much do we take to be the truth in an (auto)biography? Will reality please stand up?

I guess what I'm saying is for someone to say "Man, that Jesus was a peaceful guy" is a slippery thing. Because we first have the fact that they are reaching this conclusion based on their reading (or viewing) of something that is a creation of man, influenced by his hidden motivations and unavoidably subjective viewpoint. AND this piece of writing is in fact a translation itself from a different language. AND to top that off, THEY are reading these words and interpreting them and filtering them through their OWN hidden motivations and subjectivity.

We read what we want to read into something such as the Bible. That's why it can be so easily used to justify pretty much anything. There is room left for interpretation. And we jump at the chance to do so.

And this wouldn't bother me so much if this fact was just acknowledged, if people would be willing to say, "Yeah, maybe just maybe, the Bible might not be the end all and be all to religion. Yeah, humans wrote it, so yeah, there is a good chance of human error." But again and again, it's used to justify a way of living, and sometimes a way of condemning.

No one is asking anyone to discard their beliefs. No one is asking anyone to discard their God. But perhaps it is not a good thing to grasp on to human word so tightly--perhaps it is a good thing to step back and see a book, any book, for what it really is.

-------