Good Friday, as according to Thomas Jefferson

Good Friday is a Christian religious holiday that marks the cruxification of Jesus and his death on the cross.

It's one of the most important holy days in the Christian faith, since it not only commemorates Jesus 'dying for our sins' but also sets up the celebration of his resurrection the following Sunday.

It's an interesting time of year for me, because as with much of Christian faith, I appreciate the story of Good Friday, but not the superstition surrounding it.

I'm a Christian in that I believe Jesus Christ was a real (albeit mortal) man whose life was at least reflected in the writings of the New Testament - but I'm no "Christian" because I don't believe he was the son of God, I don't believe he "bore our sins in his body" and I certainly don't believe he was resurrected from the dead.

This is an opinion shared by many - including iconic ginger Thomas Jefferson.

Although many ignorant folk celebrate him as a "good Christian American," the second president of this great nation was nothing of the sort.

Although no atheist (he often referenced a higher power, "nature's God" and providence) Thomas Jefferson was definitely no Christian, either - and argued that while there were worthwhile parts of the Gospels, the majority was "the fabric of very inferior minds" and sifting one from the other was like "picking out diamonds from dunghills."

Conservatives will disagree - and cheerfully pluck out-of-context quotes to illustrate Jefferson's supposed Christian faith - but they're wrong.

If you need proof of that, look no further than one of the many remarkable books Thomas Jefferson wrote - the one commonly referred to as "The Jefferson Bible."

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was his attempt to rationalize Christian theology with his pragmatic, rational view of the world. To that end, Jefferson carefully consolidated the life of Jesus from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and removed from them all reference to prophecies, superstition and anything supernatural.

Basically, it portrayed Jesus as a human philosopher who preached brotherly love, peace and tolerance - and as such, his "bible" ends on Good Friday, when Jesus died on the cross and his body was gently lifted to the ground by Joseph of Arimathaea.

There was no resurrection. There was no ghostly appearance to the disciples in the upper room. He certainly never encountered Paul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (and that pretty much confirms what I've always suspected - that Paul was a self-serving parasite whose religious sermons had nothing to do with the teachings or beliefs of Jesus.)

Jesus simply died - murdered cruelly and unfairly for preaching peace and understanding. Which, in many ways, makes his death monumentally more significant. That's why I prefer to think of Good Friday as Jefferson did: The closing chapter of Jesus' life; not the foreshadowing of a comic-book style comeback.

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ends like this:

Then Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

A poignant end to an important story; and a way to make Christianity relevant even to those of us who don't believe in any of the religious mumbo-jumbo related to it.

Happy Zombie Jesus Weekend!

This weekend is the anniversary of several great events - like the birth of Playboy mogul Hugh Hefner (9th April 1926) and the date the United Kingdom first adopted the Union Flag (often incorrectly referred to as the 'Union Jack') as the flag of our great nation (12th April 1606.)

But for most people, it's also the date which marks the entombment and subsequent resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth - a Middle Eastern carpenter whose skill with a mortise and tenon joint was considered so divine, the religion of Christianity was founded around it (or something like that.)

The story of Jesus' death and reanimation is probably the most well-recorded instance of a zombie outbreak in human history. Not only was Jesus raised from the dead three days after being entombed, but according to The Gospel of Matthew (27:51-53) his death was marked by an earthquake during which many other corpses escaped their graves:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Back in Biblical times, a zombie-outbreak must have been a pretty scary occurrence and no doubt Jews and Romans alike had their brains eaten by shambling, reanimated corpses (zombies are into equal opportunity evisceration.)

Fortunately, thanks to documentaries like Dawn of the Dead and Shaun of the Dead, we 21st century types are far more educated about how to deal with an outbreak of the walking dead.

So should this Sunday bring about another outbreak of zombiefictation in your neighborhood, here's what to do:

Get All the Answers

To quote the great philosopher, G.I. Joe, 'Knowing is half the battle*' - in this case, being well-versed in all the skills you need to survive a zombie-outbreak is essential. I recommend getting your hands on this book: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead.


This handy tome has it ALL. Where to hole up, what weapons you'll need and survival tactics for outwitting the shambling, rotting corpses of your neighbors, friends (and, possibly, the symbolic head of your religion.)

If you can't get hold of it, though (Barnes and Noble might be swarming with the living dead) here's what you need to know:

• Zombies have only one purpose - to eat the living flesh and brains of humans. When they are aware of living humans in the proximity, they will ceaselessly attempt to devour them.
• A single bite from a zombie will be fatal, due to overwhelming bacterial contamination (much like the bite of the Komodo Dragon.) Once a person has died from an infected zombie bite, they will be reanimated as a zombie within the course of a the next few hours.
• The only way to successfully kill a zombie is by severing the head or destroying the brain (by bullet, impalement or blunt object trauma.)

That knowledge is pretty much all you need to know to survive a zombie outbreak, although some of my more conservative friends have pointed out the inevitable:

Should another Biblical zombie outbreak occur - perhaps in your town - the survivors will be the ones with guns. Although I've argued against the 2nd Amendment in my past few posts, I realize now that without free and easy access to large caliber handguns, we're all screwed!

I always wondered why so many conservative Christians supported the 2nd Amendment (as they should, technically, be against violence and killing.) Now I do! When they rambled nonsensically about 'home defense,' it wasn't burglars, illegal immigrants or liberals they needed to 'protect' their family from. It was ZOMBIES!

Matthew 27:51, man. It's all there, in black and white. Should have paid attention at Theological College (in my defence, I was studying history.)

So, now I know better - and hopefully you do to! Be prepared, but I hope you all have a zombie-free Easter Weekend!




* the other half of the battle is violence. Bloody, unmitigated violence. Hence why they call it a 'battle.'

Why did 'God' only write one book?

A contributor I shall refer to as 'Siger' piqued my interest by sending me this:

The One Book Author

Many authors are well known for only one book, and many with a best-selling first book never follow it up with another successful one. The best-selling book of all human history is of course the Bible, actually written by many authors over nearly a thousand years. First published after many editorial battles, it is regarded by many as having been actually written by an author referred to as 'God'.

It is strange that after such a successful product, God has not released the sequel for nearly two thousand years.

It could be, as some have surmised, that God is dead. However, others postulate that his alter ego Jesus lives. He, apart from being nearly two thousand years old (an all-time record that would probably be accepted by the Guinness Book of Records) proves difficult to contact except through a method known as 'prayer.'

There must be many publishers eager to know where he lives, his address, telephone and mobile numbers, or whether he is on e-mail - and even if he would be prepared to give interviews or appear on television.

Google gives more than twenty-six million references but does not include any of this information.

Great will be the success of the agent who is able to persuade Jesus to release to the world 'Bible II.' We look forward to the publication.

It raises a very legitimate question.

If God does exist - and if the literal Biblical interpretation of his is accurate - where is he?

In the Bible, he regularly spoke to his children, or appeared in the form of miracles that could not be attested to anything other than divine intervention.

Today, however, he seems absent. 'Miracles' tend to be the domain of The National Enquirer and the only place Jesus seems to be appearing (aside from the lyrics of 85% of Country songs) is on a variety of breakfast produce.

Why did God stop 'writing' two thousand years ago?

I would be fascinated to hear people's opinions.

Je-bus: Money well spent?

Traditionally, Evangelicalism hasn't done very well in Britain. In addition to having a fairly progressive state religion (The Church of England) Brits aren't generally programmed to go in for all that 'happy clappy' claptrap or join the 'praise Jesus!' crowd.

However, in recent years, that has been changing. The resurgence of the Evangelical cult in America has emboldened fundamentalist Christians in other countries, including England.

This campaign of disinformation is being fought on several fronts, including the teaching of Creationism in state schools (utterly despicable) and even a number of London buses emblazoned with Biblical quotes, such as: "When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8)."


I find this troubling for several reasons - not least of which, because I'm pretty sure it's illegal (I worked in advertising for years and Britain's got some pretty strict rules about using religion in adverts.)

But the really objectionable bit is that these 'Je-buses' promote a link to a website which, when visited, warns people that: "You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his demonic spirits! (Matthew 25: 41)."

Now this is where it gets silly.

Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine (who I have developed a total crush on) was so enraged by these buses and their fire-and-brimstone messaging that she encouraged readers to donate money for a 'positive response' to the Evangelicals and their nonsense.

"If there are 4,680 atheists reading this," Sherine challenged in her column, "and we all contribute £5, it's possible that we can fund a much-needed atheist London bus ad with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Sherine set up a 'Just Giving' account with a proposed target of £5,500 and - much to everybody's surprise - busted that target by an astonishing 2400%.

Richard Dawkins, the man behind the best-selling book 'The God Delusion' proudly launched the 'atheist bus' campaign, which rolled out on a whopping 800 buses nationwide, instead of just the original 30 Ariane Sherine had envisaged.


The campaign even went international, with buses in Spain and Washington D.C. running the slogan: "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." The Australian advertising commission, funnily enough, rejected a similar atheist campaign.

Now, as somebody who has had it up to here with the misleading, offensive, bigoted, ignorant rubbish peddled by the mainstream Evangelicalism, you'd think I'd find the rise of the atheist buses to be heartwarming and affirming. However, I can't help but think they're an awful waste of money.

£135,000 was spent on the national "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life" campaign. God knows how much money was frittered away by the stupid Evangelicals on their original 'you're all going to hell' bus stickers in the first place.

That money could have gone to cancer research, finding a cure for AIDS or something else practical. Instead, we're using one of the most expensive, imprecise and immeasurable advertising mediums on the planet to fight an expensive war for the hearts and minds of a bunch of people who probably couldn't care less in the first place.

I do think the atheist bus campaign was a complete waste of time and money, but it's the Evangelicals I'm especially angry at. If they weren't so eager to reduce the Western world to a backwards, fundamentalist regime, (like the Taliban in the middle east) than all those well intentioned atheists, who donated money to counter that rubbish on those 'Je-buses', could have donated to much more worthwhile charities instead.

The Bible as Literature

My recent tongue-in-cheek post about the Bible resulted in a couple of emails and a blog comment.

One acknowledged that I 'didn't mean any harm' by my post, another implied that my reference to the contradictions, discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Bible 'reveal a lack of understanding of the work.'

It's the second statement I disagree with. This is a very common response from people who don't agree with my particular take on the Bible and the context of what's written within it - but I went to a theological university (albeit to study history) and took classes on the history and origins of the Bible.

I think this puts me in a better position to discuss it than a certain sect of the Christian community, whose 'knowledge' of the Bible stems from them reading their own particular English translation of the Bible and discussing it amongst themselves.

There is an important difference between 'studying the Bible' (in which one learns about the documentary history of the Bible, the historical and political influences that effected it's development and the context in which it was written) and 'Bible studies.' Reading four chapters of the Bible every day does not give you a better understanding of it.

The fact is, each of the 21 English-language translations of the Bible are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies. Even ignoring the internal inaccuracies, it's difficult to reconcile how one translation of the Bible (such as the popular King James) is often in contradiction with another (such as the Revised Standard Bible.)

I've written quite extensively about it here - The Bible and Star Wars.

It doesn't have to be a big deal. The inaccuracy of the Bible shouldn't be a question of faith.

For example, I'm an atheist and I still believe that the Bible contains many historical and philosophical truths. Catholics and Episcopalians still believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins - yet they're willing to accept that the story of creation was allegorical and the actual birth of mankind follows what scientific study has taught us.

[You should listen to the Catholics, guys. When it comes to The Bible, they wrote the book. Literally. - Editorial Bear.]

The problem arises when fundamentalist evangelicals - and yes, I'm sorry I'm always ragging on you - try to claim that the Bible isn't inaccurate. It's not allegorical. It's literal fact and it's the infallible word of God.

I simply find it astonishing - mind boggling - that we live in the early years of the 21st century (man has split the atom, sent men to the moon and harnessed the power of DNA) yet there are millions of people in the United States who honestly believe that the world is 7,000 years old and God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (what was she? Six inches tall?)

But I've discussed this particular troubling issue many, many times over and generally reached the same impasse. They tell me: "If the facts don't agree with our belief system, then the facts are wrong." There's very little point discussing it further.

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?" Stephen Colbert

Riddle Me This...

Assuming for a second that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the copy you've got sitting in your bookcase (let's say it's the Revised Standard Bible) is entirely 100% accurate (even if it has several inconsistencies with your neighbour's King James Bible) could you answer me these questions? I'll make them multiple choice, to keep things easy.

Let's look at some of the attitudes and inspirations behind Christian faith first.

God is...

1. ...love, which is not jealous or boastful
2. ...a jealous God, who will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins and will turn and do you hurt, and consume you

The Bible's attitudes towards feminism are:

1. Progressive. "There is no such thing as male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus."
2. Chauvinistic. "Women should keep silent. They have no permission to talk. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home."

What was God's attitude to enemies and war?

1. He was an old softy! "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds."
2. He was a vicious old bastard. "Go now, fall upon them! Destroy them! Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys!"

If that hasn't confused you, let's have a look at some of the purely factual evidence regarding certain events (like Christ's Crucifixion.)

After Judas betrayed him, following the Last Supper, which of the Jewish authorities decided whether to hand Jesus Christ over to Pontius Pilate or not?

1. Jesus is placed on trial in front of the whole Sanhedrin.
2. There's no trial. The Sanhedrin merely hold an inquiry to decide.
3. There isn't even an inquiry. Jesus only appears before Annas and Caiphas.

When Jesus is arrested, how does he tell his disciples to react?

1. Non-violently. "Those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword," he warns them.
2. Aggressively. "Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one!"
3. He doesn't say a thing. He's too busy getting arrested.

After betraying Jesus, Judas Iscariot...

1. Gave back the money he'd been bribed and hung himself.
2. Kept the money, fell over and died after his intestines randomly fell out.

The answer to all of the questions is 'all of the above.'

These are just a tiny handful of the hundreds of blatant contradictions contained within the Bible, ranging from major theological issues (is homosexuality a sin? Or does Jesus condone it?) to some mundane, but important facts (Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, while Matthew implied they lived in Bethlehem.)

I've said it once. I ought to say it again. The fact that the Bible is a deeply flawed and inaccurate document does not stop it being an enormously important book - nor diminish the message of faith it contains. However, it is not the infallible word of God, as certain evangelicals would like to believe. It's not even the infallible word of man.

In the course of the Bible's long journey to your bookshelf, the real events that inspired it have been significantly warped, manipulated, misquoted and fictionalized. The worst of that damage has been done in the last century or so - when dozens of forthright and opinionated 'translators' delivered their own 'versions' of the King James Bible, using creative licence to insert their own religious agendas in amongst the so called 'words of God.'

There are no less than 21 different English translations of the Bible. You can see that list here. What troubles me more than any of the inconsistencies within the scriptures itself are the discrepancies between one edition of the 'English Language Bible' and another.

One Bible translates something one way. Another translates it different. This website allows you to take a specific passage from the Bible and compare each of the 21 translations against each other. Before anybody claims that 'the Bible' is the infallible word of God, they should take their favourite passage and see how different it appears in other versions.

Which one is the 'infallible word of God?'

None of them. And the sooner the evangelical movement accept that faith in God doesn't require slavish devotion to a flawed religious text, the sooner we can all embrace rationality and reason, instead of cynical superstition.

Courting Jesus

Jesus is very hip in America at the moment - especially during the holiday season.

Which is why you'll find him in all sorts of places - including inviting fictional workaholic Nick Cominsky out to dinner in David Gregory's best-selling pocketbook Dinner with a Perfect Stranger.

This throwaway novella, published by WaterBrook press in 2005, uses the notion of Jesus - the real, authentic bloke - inviting cynic Nick Cominsky out to dinner. Over Italian food, the two discuss life, religion and the meaning of existence - and cynical Nick returns home with a slightly greater appreciation of the Christian faith.

In many ways, this book is a masterpiece. It's beautifully printed, it's short enough to read over the course of an afternoon and it's so utterly fluffy and inconsequential that even the most die-hard atheist would struggle to find too much to object to in it.

Which is really why it's so horrible. I mean, it's meant to be our protagonist, Nick, who's the cynical one - but I think there must have been a fair bit of cynicism behind David Gregory's smoothly written prose. "They'll eat this up," he must have chuckled.

The major fault with David's book is that it's ridiculously soft-focus. The big issues - the stuff that really drives a wedge between a rational man and the Christian faith - are glossed over deliciously quickly. Oh, sure, Nick Cominsky asks Jesus some tough questions - like where in God's plan did it say his parents would have to get divorced, or his father pass away when he was a teenager?

The soft-focus comes in when Nick swallows the responses David Gregory's Jesus gives him. In this case, a very 'book of Job' reply which states that letting bad things happen to his followers strengthens their faith in the maker.

When bad things happen, people often turn to God. So Jesus - according to David Gregory - turns people's life to shit and expects them to love him for it.

Given the growing emergence of a Christian Renaissance in America, it's understandable that authors want to jump on the bandwagon and write marketable books intended to bring the Christian faith into the 21st century. However, David Gregory does it in such a hamfisted way that what you're left with is a brief, flippant sermon that panders to our lowest superstitious denominator.

Whether you're a Christian or not, I'd steer well clear of this book. Just as Jesus apparently expects his followers to love him for putting them through hell, David Gregory expects good Christian men and women (or even those on the fence) to swallow this nutritionless gruel he's spoon feeding your spirituality.

Avoid.

Dinner With a Perfect Stranger, by David Gregory, is available from bookshops and online for $12,95. Which is, coincidentally, the same price as one month's subscription to SIRIUS radio and I know which one I'd prefer!

The Brand of Jesus

It wasn't Ava who woke me up at an ungodly hour this morning. It was the sound of hammering on my bedroom wall. Blearily peering around the door, I discovered my mother in law had erected this monstrosity in our kitchen:

Just in case you're wondering, yes. This IS a plastic veneer clock featuring a chintzy picture of Jesus and his Disciples at The Last Supper. Mom (or as Tina calls her, Maaaaaa!) discovered it in our basement and moved it upstairs: "So Jesus would give you a little luck."

Which is a really sweet idea - although I thought it was leprechauns that went around doling out luck. Jesus kind of stuck to salvation and other big, important spiritual matters.

In any event, I'm not a big fan of the clock. It's cheap, tacky and plastic. I'm sure Jesus would not be too impressed that his image was inexpensively printed on it. Tina has interpreted my dislike of the clock as good, old fashioned Episcopalian distaste for iconography. In actual fact, it's far less complicated than that.

Who owns Jesus' copyright?

Having worked in the media for the last few years, I've had the chance to work with some reasonably famous celebrities (big names, like Nasty Nick from Season 1 of Big Brother.) One thing's for sure. If some shoddy Chinese factory started churning out crappy plastic clocks with, for example, Ricky Gervais' mug printed on them, there'd be a court case brewing before you can say: "Flanimal."

But poor Jesus - arguably the ultimate celebrity - doesn't have the protection a good Agent and a retinue of lawyers grants most famous people. For the last two thousand years, his likeness has been plastered over everything from priceless gold-leafed bibles to the crappy clock that's presently disgracing my kitchen wall.

It's not just his picture, either. Any good Catholic will criticize you for taking the Lord's name in vain (When I hit my thumb with a hammer, I've adapted to yelling the less offensive: Jesus H. Corbett!)

Yet poor old Jesus has his name attached to all sorts of ridiculous campaigns, including those of the highly offensive Westboro Baptist Church - who proclaim: "Thank God for Improvised Explosive Devices" - their protest against the war in Iraq - and run a website called "Godhatesfags.com" - which promotes the idea that homosexuality should be a capital crime.

I just think it's wrong. Very, very wrong. Whether you believe he was the Son of God or not, it's pretty much accepted that Jesus was a real person living in real times (try reading the excellent Werner Keller book The Bible as History to draw your own conclusions.) Surely it's not quite right that his image, name and personal brand get plastered over all sorts of eclectic products and campaigns.

It's not even his image half the time. Jesus was a Jewish carpenter growing up in the Holy Land. He was probably a stocky, swarthy little man - instead of the dashing, blue eyed Robert Powell lookalike that the Catholics seem to think he is.

If the peddlers of these products really call themselves Christians, they should quit adjusting Jesus' likeness and what we know of his beliefs to suit their own commercial purposes - or, at the very least, they should consider what Jesus might think about his mug being plastered all over something Made in China.

I think this is why the whole iconography thing slightly freaks me out - and not just because I now have Jesus and Chums staring down at me from my kitchen wall as I eat my pancakes.