Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains:
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Social Epistemology / Cosmo / gods, etc, religion …
The Acts of the Apostles
The Bible, defectively told and impossible to edit authoritatively (Boy, will we be in for a shock if God ever shows up with his original manuscript!), tells us how Jesus tried preaching, built an audience, then got cut off at the ankles. Some people were Christians anyway while Romans like Saul of Tarsus persecuted them. Then Saul became Paul, and by the Fourth Century the shoe was switching to the other foot. But not before some Christians, according to the book of Acts, tried to live the way they thought Jesus was teaching.
Centuries later? Me too!
But now I see that we’re making it up as we go along, some more intelligently (some less intelligently) than others.
When I was in Sunday School I followed everything the teacher said: until he came to the book of Acts. I was all for the “communism” of the early Christians: but Mr. Dade was explaining it away as something impractical, that the other Christians saw the error of, and corrected. I saw us as wrong, as failed; he saw us as right! (Now shut up and align yourself.)
Here’s some first draft scribble:
|I loved being reminded of the book of Acts, a book which was of the utmost importance to me in Sunday School but which I hadn’t read since! When I was ten or so the efforts some Christian made to share communally struck me as utterly implicit in the Gospels, in the Sermon on the Mount. Now I’m inclined to see it all as gibberish, contradictory data being twisted this way and that by people with preexisting agendas: preexisting but nevertheless evolving: evolution not necessarily positive, progressive, improving.|
tangent, parallel, to join
My mother worked for an insurance agency. She tried to explain what a great invention insurance was. I saw her as rationalizing, I saw insurance as a rip off. Because I saw what should have been done, two thousand years ago, and what Christians did do — ever since — as incompatible. Yes, we should have invented insurance: as sharing risk, among convivial people (Illich’s term I picked up as Illich developed the concept) who loved Jesus.
Stop shoulding me.
bk to pk
The difference between insurance as we have it and insurance as we should have had it is precisely congruent with the difference between the internet as I tried to develop it in 1970 (Illich’s and my Free Learning Exchange) and this dreadful internet I’m now posting this on. If only people could tell the difference between being bamboozled and convivially watching each others’ back.
The absence of insurance between the book of Acts and the ships captains getting together in England nearly two thousand years later is proof that we have no right to the labels we claim.
Or, I’m wrong. And the commie Christians were wrong. And saint Illich was wrong. And I should have done my best to bamboozle along with the rest of the secularly hypocritical kleptocrats.
If Christians ran the insurance business profits would be ploughed back into the community served. No one could go bankrupt unless everyone went bankrupt. You figured a premium of $2 was needed, you show a profit of $1: you charged $1 too much, give it back! or be a pagan, not a Christian!
So: the Temple got rid of Jesus before he could say much. Then Christians didn’t listen to the stories about Jesus Christians were telling, they listened to Paul! especially when the forgers and liars, in Paul’s name, were being nasty: whittling women back into un-respected servitude (and then rationalizing it).
See Bart Ehrman’s several books on the subject.
Of course the flaw in my argument as I wanted to begin building it c. 1948 is that it doesn’t yet allow for population growth. If one guy has one friend and one sandwich then he should share the sandwich with his friend: if he wants to be a convivial Christian: unless: the friend is gonna get knocked up in the bar, spitting out a bastard a year, while still expecting half the sucker-friend’s sandwich! Then the sucker should sap the girlfriend and keep his sandwich. Or, let the girl breed, and eat all the children.
No, wait a minute, pk: you’re gonna let the girl wax pregnant for nine months or a year in order to harvest a baby that may weight four pounds? How much of those “four” pounds are going to be edible? Two pounds? Someone’s gotta be feeding her even if you’re not.
No, no: we took a world in which any creature born could try to find food: eat, or starve: find shelter, find a mate … The girl shouldn’t need half your sandwich. What we need is freedom! And to accept that some of us are going to starve.
If we had done that then we wouldn’t have needed Jesus either.