Now, I suppose it's natural for many individuals raised in any given "faith" to feel that it is the "best" religious belief system. This we might call a form of natural "chauvinism" comparable to similar feelings about one's country. In ancient times, while a degree of religious chauvinism could be found in most cultures, there was still, undoubtedly, a grudging respect for other religions. The two main reasons: (1) The vast majority of cultures were polytheistic, naturally accepting other cultures' gods as worthy, if not as powerful, as their own deities. (2) Ancient cultures treated their god(s) as virtual "sponsors," who assisted them, not only with the considerable struggles of everyday life, but in their battles with other nations who were, in turn, sponsored by their own powerful gods. At the same time, it should be noted that, initially, none of these ancient cultures' gods were expected to be what we would call "ethical." I believe that for the most part, the relationship between ancient cultures and their god(s) could best be described as one of "expedience." Thus the "worship" of these gods seems to have been based mainly on "fear," the fear of abandonment, and with it the loss of the god's sponsorship and protection. It had little or nothing to do, apparently, with love or morality.
Ironically, many of the most successful ancient empires' "golden ages" seemed to correspond with periods in which the conquerors allowed the subservient cultures to maintain their various religious and social practices. Certainly Alexander's empire as well as those of the Romans and Muslims all seem to fit comfortably into this category. Meanwhile, it seems that with the advent of monotheism, especially the biblical vision of one supreme being as opposed to multiple supposedly "false" pagan gods, the chauvinism seemed to have evolved, or, perhaps we should say "devolved," eventually, into a sort of arrogant assertion that one's religion is the only "true" religion.
Now, the primitive idea that a lone god would arbitrarily "sponsor" one chosen culture and not another seems to defy simple logic, of course, unless there were some reason to prefer that culture over others. In fact, the early Old Testament god would have no inherent reason to prefer the Abrahamic fathers over other families. Nonetheless, "He" befriends Abraham, but the hot-headed, jealous deity demands a rather one sided relationship because whenever a lapse occurs, it is never the "god's" responsibility. Thus the characterization of "G-d" described in the early Old Testament is one of "omni-potency," but clearly not "omni-competency," as He supposedly makes one mistake after another, apparently "correcting" each mistake with His favorite method, "mass murder" of His own creations. According to the Bible, He kills every living creature, man or beast, innocent or guilty, save for those on the famous ark, in a flood. Except for Lot, He murders all of His creations in Sodom and Gomorrah and throws in Lot's wife to boot. Later, He murders all the innocent Egyptian first-borns along with the "guilty" ones. In the Sinai desert, meanwhile, He comes within a whisker of executing all the "Children of Israel" before his counselor, Moses, convinces him to kill "only" a few thousand instead. Then, inexplicably, He murders Job's family- on a bet. ON A BET!!!!!!!
Fortunately, with the inspiring advent of the Moses character, Judean leaders arrive at what some may call an "epiphany!" For one of the first times in history, "someone" associates their national sponsor, "G-d," with morality. This is really a major step forward in the development of religion. None of the famous secular social ethical systems, not even the Greeks' had ever assigned ethical rules to their god(s)' behavior (similar to the "gods'' on our own Supreme Court). Whenever a Jewish person is asked what is his or her "belief," he is taught to answer "The Lord our G-d is one, there shall be no other gods before Him," and "love your neighbor as yourself." Unfortunately, as more and more events are traced to a single creator, reasons must be invented to disentangle the now "perfect" god from responsibility for his supposed actions. What's more, if the god is to be ethical, "He" cannot arbitrarily play favorites. Thus a righteous person who may even believe in more than one god should be treated with respect according to Hillel, the prototypical and greatest Pharisee. For Hillel, the Torah's main function, despite its glorification of "G-d," is in the explanation of how to treat our fellow human beings as well as "His" other creations. The rest, Hillel claims, is "commentary," that is, interpreting the underlying intent to coincide with changing times. It is not that one should not glorify "G-d," but that the only way to do so is to treat "His" creations with respect. In other words, we need "Him." "He" supposedly does not need us.
Ironically, it is Jesus, two generations after Hillel, who quotes the same "Golden Rule" when asked to explain not only the proper way to act, but the most important way to glorify the deity at the same time. Both Hillel and Jesus lack the one thing that eventually plagues their religion and that is "arrogance." Notice that neither condemns those who perform righteous acts but don't worship the "true" G-d. Now, using Jesus' own Pharisaic logic, if Hillel is not arrogant in his attitude toward G-d, how much more so would his G-d have to lack arrogance as well? And, if as most of his followers believe, Jesus is G-d, then how much more obviously would he too lack arrogance?
The Pharisees of Hillel's time struggled with this dilemma as had the prophets of the Old Testament. They also had the problem of justifying all of the tragedy and hardship as well as the obvious unfairness so prevalent in their world, especially with one supreme, "perfect" deity supposedly watching over them. Thus they developed the concept that seems to have so badly eluded Paul (Saul of Tarsus), his pagan followers, and the authors of the Nicene New Testament, that is the "Kingdom of G-d." In early Pauline pagan Christianity, the "Kingdom of G-d" was to be found somewhere in outer space, a place where "people" or, more accurately, their "souls" would end up if they simply believed in exactly the same things that Paul and his followers believed, that is, their mythology. This was very alluring, of course, both to those multitudes of people suffering the unrelenting abuse of the ruling class and even more so to their abusers.
Unfortunately, while this concept might have allayed the worries of a few of the sufferers, it did little to relieve their actual misery. This problem was severely exacerbated by the utter hatred and vindictiveness exhibited by Paul toward anyone who seemed to disagree with him in the slightest degree. For example, in Galatians 5:12 he wishes anyone being circumcised should be accidentally castrated and in 2 Corinthians 11:6 anyone disagreeing with him should be "accursed." Thus Paul's bitter conflict with the actual flesh and blood followers of Jesus led to a huge schism between the original Jesus Christians and the Pauline (pagan) "Christians."
With his utter disdain and hatred for the Jewish roots of Jesus, much of Jesus' message seems to have been lost in Paul's mythology. For the Judeans, there did not seem to be a clear concept of a distinct "soul." In fact, the modern Hebrew word for "soul," nefesh, apparently meant "individual" in the time of Jesus. Thus the Pharisees and certain other sects developed the idea of "t'chiat ha metim," the bringing back to life of dead individuals by G-d re-breathing life into their dead bodies or dust. This privilege was, however, to be based on how well the deceased individual had behaved while alive. This is exactly what Jesus' actual apostles believed and why they believed he had been resurrected and exactly the way Jesus must have anticipated it.
As for the "Kingdom of G-d," for the Prophets, the Pharisees, and Jesus, well educated Pharisee that he certainly appears to have been (even in the New Testament), the "Kingdom of G-d" was supposed to be established in Israel as an example to the other nations. That is why they were supposed to have been "chosen" and it is what he keeps preaching to his followers, believing, like John the Baptizer, that if his people will only follow his instructions and do their level best to repent, his "Father in Heaven" will save them from the Roman occupation. Thus they could become that same "shining city on a hill" that Ronald Reagan also sought to build.
Instead, Paul and his followers doubled down in their arrogance, essentially changing Jesus' message from one of "Love your neighbor...The rest is all commentary" into Paul's authoritarian message of "believe in my mythology, my religion, and accede to my rules or else your soul will be damned to eternal hell! Believe in me and you can punch your free ticket to a heavenly, eternal resort somewhere in outer space. Essentially, through his supposed "vision" on the way to Damascus while he was acting as a bounty hunter for the Roman appointed oligarch high priests, Paul came up with an ingenious idea, his real "epiphany," a brilliant way to steal Jesus' identity and create his own religious franchises. To do this, he and his followers introduce the concepts of "original sin" and "grace," essentially nullifying all of the progress religion had made in the giant step from the belief in multiple unethical pagan gods to one ethical "G-d."
At least the Jewish relationship with their deity involved some sort of straightforward "contract," even if it were sealed, perhaps unfortunately, with the circumcision of male children. Ideally, if His followers acted ethically, the deity promised to make them a successful nation. The fact that the deity seemed to fail, so often, to keep His end of the bargain, led to the aforementioned idea of an afterlife as a just reward for the individual's righteous actions. Thus, somehow the deity could retain His own "righteousness," His own "responsibility," and His own "integrity."
By introducing the ideas of "original sin" and "G-d's grace," Paul and his followers effectively demoted their deity, including Jesus, to the level of a human king. In fact, it is exactly how one refers to a human king! The title signifies that any whim the king might have is automatically justified and cannot be challenged, no matter how unjust! Thus the king, "His Grace," needs to take no responsibility for his actions! Unfortunately, in the case of Paul's "deity," because he is not at all responsible for "His" actions, neither are his followers responsible for theirs. That is, anything can be justified by "faith" in a deity that needs to take no responsibility for its own actions. Is this not the "perfect autocratic storm?"
Interestingly, in order to establish the concept of "grace," Paul had to first introduce the clearly illogical and indeed, the obscene concept of "original sin." This idea, so counterintuitive to any rational thinker, contends that the newborn child is already saddled with the responsibility for the sin of its earliest, original ancestors, the "possibly" mythical Adam and Eve. Thus the child is assigned responsibility for something he had absolutely nothing to do with and the only one who can save him is Paul's deity who takes no responsibility for anything "He" does. C.S. Lewis, in a rare moment of desperation, called "grace" Christian "love." Thus his deity does not really feel" love" for his creations, but He provides them some reasonable facsimile, arbitrarily, through "grace." In fact, nowhere, in all of history, is there any evidence, apparently, of a deity supposedly displaying any "emotion" except anger or jealousy unless he is partly human! Now, perhaps it is easier to understand why Gnostics were so enamored with the idea of the human Jesus making the old, imperfect G-d "complete." It is only through the humanity of Jesus, his capacity to feel love and compassion (human feelings), that they conceived that an otherwise unfeeling deity could actually experience those emotions.
So now we have regressed, it seems, returning to the arrogance and chauvinism of another era. White Paulines ("Christian," being a most honorable designation, I cannot credit them with the title) not only seem to be in total denial of their culture's abuse of African Americans and other minorities, but more importantly they certainly seem to want, very badly, for the abuses to continue. To do this, they insist on censoring historical facts, on government funding of many inferior charter schools, gross gerrymandering of congressional districts and the appointment of clearly incompetent and/or dishonest judges. They don't even deny that they are doing these things, but claim they are somehow "legal," completing the vicious cycle with their own un-Christian justices' support of their utter absurdities.
On the other side of the aisle, ultraliberals, mired in self righteousness, have not bothered at all to change their curriculum, to address legitimate (however exaggerated) claims of ashamed Pauline parents that, like those parents, children will also be ashamed of their heritage. Ironically, these changes cannot and will not be possible without highlighting the stark differences between Paul and Jesus, without illustrating that both the greatest heroes and the greatest villains of our history professed to be following Jesus, but that the villains simply did not!!! More than likely, well educated children will be eager to quite proudly right those wrongs in the name of their religion! Meanwhile, autocratic leaning figures like Trump, DeSantis, and so many others will continue to promote the clearly un-Christian values of Paul, spewing hatred and blaming others for our own failings.
Note: Let us put our "deity" on one side of the spectrum and what we will call "actual G-d" on the other side. Whether one believes in divine revelation, epiphanies, miracles, mythology or scientific thinking, the "deity" is still only a concept. For "People of the Book," that is Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the "deity" is "anthropomorphic," designed by human beings to have human characteristics. On the other hand, if there is a "G-d," He is an "actual G-d," in no way dependent on our conceptualization of "Him." Thus, if our characterization of "G-d" happens to be true, it is by coincidence. In the same vein, each religion's mythology is just that, "mythology," the authors presenting their best explanation for our own existence. The only meager "proof" we have of our "G-d's" existence, ironically, is in our own existence, in our own ability to think and to feel emotions especially love and compassion.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
