- Will Bessler

Monday, July 22, 2013

JESUS!

JESUS

Francis William Bessler

Laramie, Wyoming

7/22/2013

End of a Trilogy

This is the last of three articles that I intend as a sort of “trilogy” - tying together, perhaps, the most important “three” concepts of my life. I am not saying that these three should be the most important of everyone’s life. I am only offering they are the most important of my life. If you have been with me, those three ideas are SEX, GOD, & JESUS.

I love sex, but I see sex in a rather different way than most do. I see sex as just following the prescriptions of what I think of as NATURAL DESIGN. I am free within that scope of things because I do only - or try to do only - that which I think Nature has designed me to do.

For example, looking at Nature as the Master and Teacher, so to speak, I see the general pattern of animals and birds and creatures in general having coitus almost exclusively for procreation. It is easy, then, for me to decide about sexual matters because I see the ideal in sex as staying with the “natural norm” of having coitus for procreation. Believe me, that is a norm that keeps me safe - and anyone with whom I might deal safe too. There will be no “unwanted children” happening through me because I do not believe in taking chances - so to speak.

I guess you could say that I believe in sex - but I believe in SAFE SEX; and “safe sex” is not defined by various drugs that I can take to “avoid” natural consequences, but rather it is sex practiced without inhibition - be that inhibition drug oriented or otherwise. Safe Sex is sex practiced that will not likely damage a human organ by its practice - or alter the human system to be other than it is. Safe sex is not treating an organ of the body - like the anus - like it was “designed” for input when it was actually designed for “output.”

An example of “safe sex” is Oral Sex - given that the participants are clean. When people tell me that I am too conservative because I do not practice coitus except for procreation, I tell them that I can please a partner as much by kissing them all over as by “invading them.”

I love being sensual and believe that all my senses are “Gifts of Nature & God.” I do not see my senses as some kind of “trap” intended to misdirect or mislead my soul - as so many seem to do. My soul is occupying this wonderful sensual body because it is choosing to do so. I am not a “prisoner” in a sensual body. I am a “free soul” in a sensual body.

I offered that I go naked all the time that I can because I do not want to restrict my senses - or if I did not argue that, I am doing so now. I very much enjoy experiencing myself in sensual terms - again within the realistic confines of Natural Design; but as I offered in my article on sex, interpretation of Natural Design should be up to the individual. It should not be for me to determine what Natural Design should be for you, but only for me. I will leave it at that.

My next most important concept that I wrote about was - or is - God. Perhaps I should have written about it first because it is probably the most important for me, but regardless of that, there is nothing more important to me than the idea of God - and what I think a discussion of God brings to the table of understanding life.

In fact, I cannot imagine anything existing without God, but my God is not a personal God. In my view, a personal God is impossible because that implies that there can be an “individual” we call God that is somehow roaming about that which I think of as Infinity - or Immensity - or, if you wish, Eternity. That makes no sense to me whatever. How can there be a “personal God” Which is often dictated as a “Creator” of all things as if that God “personally” crafts all things?

It is obvious to me that Creation Happens because of an Infinite God, but an Infinite God does not make anything that is made. My parents “made me,” for instance. God did not “make me.” That should be obvious to anyone with a brain to think about it and review life as it is. That is not to say that God is not part of Creation. It is only to say that God is not the “Creator” that many religions claim “He” is. In fact, God cannot be a “He” in the first place because God cannot be a person - be that person a she or a he. In light of the idea of Infinity, a personal God makes no sense; however a Presence God makes all the sense in the world.

God is not a person hanging around me, but God is a Presence enveloping me. That makes me and all things and all existence Holy. In that view, All is Holy and nothing is “profane.” In light of God, there can be no “profanity.” If profanity exists, it exists only because people see life - or some part of it - as “profane” - or lacking in the Sacred - and treating it accordingly.

I must admit that growing up, I “feared” God - perhaps as much I “loved” God - but that was because I was ignorant of the TRUE GOD. I was given to believe that God is outside of me and watching my every move and virtually taking notes; and then at the end of my life on Earth, God would use those notes to judge me.

“Francis, “ God would say on “Judgment Day,” I approve of what you did at this time, but I do not approve of what you did at that time. Hmmmm - grading on the curve, though, I guess I can approve of you getting into my Heaven.”

And therein is the view that most have of God - a personal supervisor who will approve or disapprove of what we do; but I have long passed beyond that notion because of the wonderful Idea and Ideal of Infinity. Infinity - or the idea of Infinity - frees me like nothing else can. Knowing now that God cannot be a “person” somehow set outside of me to judge me, I can view God for what God really is - or probably really is - INFINITY ITSELF. I could say more, but I think I said quite enough on that in my previous article on God - THE LIGHT OF GOD. Feel welcome to check out more of my thoughts on God there. OK?

And Now - Jesus!

My view on the one we call “Jesus” is the same as my view on Sex and God. It is “my own.” As I have not allowed others to define either sex or God for me, neither is it for me to allow others to define Jesus for me.

Jesus is the last of my trilogy of ideas, however, because it must be - or a discussion of Jesus must follow a discussion of the other two ideas. I could exist without a Jesus, but I cannot exist without sex or God. In that way, Jesus is like a bit of a “postscript” to my understanding of life. If a Jesus did not exist, I would still have been instructed in all I really “need to know.” What does it matter that any one individual has existed or not?

Having said that, I know of no one who loves Jesus as much as I do. It’s just that my life is not dependent upon Jesus for meaning - and I believe that Jesus would be the first one to applaud that notion. I do not see Jesus as having to be part of my life, but simply being a person I have loved dearly in my life - like a good friend or wife (and in my case, ex-wife and ex-wives), or daughter or sibling - or, of course, parent. Jesus is just one of those people I have loved dearly - and I pride myself on my love of Jesus like I pride myself on any love I have had in life.

In reality, however, my ideas of any person must be consistent with my ideas of God. I cannot claim that God is IN all as I do and then claim that one of us is “more of God” than another. Accordingly, my Jesus cannot be THE SON OF GOD that many of my fellow Christians believe he is. For me, everyone is a “son of God” because no one exists independent of God. It means nothing to me to say that Jesus was THE SON OF GOD because, for me, there can be no such thing.

Naturally speaking, how could it be? How could an Infinity that is Endless somehow “create” another Endless Being? That is what would have to happen if God could “create” an Only Son. People ought to think about that when they are told that Jesus is “The Only Son” of God. It sounds just fine, but logically, it is IMPOSSIBLE. And why would God want to create an “Only Son”? That is assuming, of course, that God is a person in the first place - which as I have argued, can’t be.

In truth, those who have dictated that Jesus is the Only Son of God are among those who use God to threaten the rest of us. John of Patmos comes to mind - with his unbelievable BOOK OF REVELATION. John would have us believe that Jesus - as The Son of God - must be about his “Father’s business” - and since the God of John is one who is intent on judging others at some proverbial “end of time,” then “The Son of God” must also be about the same thing.

What idiocy! The Jesus I know taught that we inherit what we sow, but that is the extent of judgment. The Jesus I know insisted that he was not into “judging people” and that people judge themselves by how they act and how they conduct their lives. So, why in the world would Jesus change his stripes at some “end of time” and sit at the right hand of God - as John of Patmos did argue - and “judge” us all when, in life, he literally denounced judgment by others?

In a way, I feel sorry for those who see Jesus in the light of how someone else has seen him - or sees him. I think it is truly sad that some have chosen to claim to have known Jesus in some “special way” and then have proceeded to “dictate” their idea of Jesus to everyone else. That is most unfortunate in my opinion.

I think the Gospels of the BIBLE are very reflective of the idea that no one really knew Jesus - and that is why there have been so many versions and stories of Jesus written. If Jesus was so clearly understood by his so-called “disciples,” then his story would have been clear too; but the very idea that different people wrote different stories proves that no one knew Jesus anymore than I know him now.

Was Jesus a “real lord,” for instance? I do not see him now as that, though I must admit I was reared to believe he was - and is. What is a “lord,” anyway? Well, when I thought of Jesus as Lord, I saw Jesus as “necessary for my life.” I think most traditional Christians believe that they simply could not do “without Jesus” - and that is why they make him Lord. They act like without the “Lord Jesus,” they would be lost and without any meaning at all. Well, that is what the “Lord Jesus” folks would have us believe, but I do not believe it because I do not see myself as having to know Jesus to know about life and the wonder and the mystery and the absolute sanctity of it.

What did Jesus think of himself? I suspect he thought of himself pretty much like I think of myself - as one individual that no one really needs, but one everyone can love. But I am not “lovable” by virtue of anything special about me - any more than Jesus should be lovable because he is special. I am lovable - or should be - because of my being a “wonderful creature.” Everyone should love other “wonderful creatures.” So, everyone should love me - and I should love everyone else. It is as simple as that.

In one of the many versions of Jesus, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Jesus asked three disciples that were about at the time to tell him who they thought he was. He said in Verse 13: Make a comparison to me and tell me whom I am like. Simon Peter said to Him: Thou art like a righteous angel. Matthew said to Him: Thou art like a wise man of understanding. Thomas said to Him: Master, my mouth will not at all be capable of saying whom Thou art like. Jesus said: I am not thy Master because thou hast drunk from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.”

And that tells it like I believe it. Jesus being a “brother” and not a “messiah” necessary for all to know and love life. In that quote, though many would not agree with it and many have attacked it as “pure heresy,” Jesus is saying exactly what I would think he would be saying if he were offering that no one really needs him, though they could use his “wisdom” - or the “bubbling spring” he has measured out.

Simply put yourself in the place of Thomas - since it was Thomas that Jesus was directing mostly in this quote. Jesus did not disagree with Peter who claimed that Jesus is “like a righteous angel” because it was true. Jesus was - and is - like a righteous angel - as one who is worthy of the love of God and Life. Jesus did not disagree with Matthew’s impression of Jesus either - “a wise man of understanding” - because Jesus was like a wise man of understanding; however, Jesus did correct Thomas because Thomas was implying something with which Jesus disagreed.

Thomas was at least implying that Jesus was a “master” or a “lord” that Thomas could not do without. Jesus corrected Thomas by saying he was not the “master” of Thomas because Thomas was already believing that wisdom which Jesus was offering. Jesus told Thomas: I am not thy Master because thou hast drunk (or are drinking) from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.

In another verse in THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Verse 108: Jesus said: Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become as I am and I myself will become he, and the hidden things shall be revealed to him.

There again is that notion that I love so much - that wisdom about life is the real treasure and wisdom is something that is true for all, not just for Jesus. No one needs the author of a tale - if a tale is worthwhile at all. All one needs is a tale itself. No one needs a teacher of wisdom, but we can all use wisdom itself. That is what I believe - and I think it is what the Jesus of Thomas is saying as well.

Note: For those unfamiliar with THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS - and a brief commentary about its history - please refer to my article: KNOW THYSELF.

Meeting Jesus!

If I were to meet Jesus, I hope that I would be naked. Why? Because I think Jesus would be naked. We would be two naked friends meeting on the path of life! I suspect that if I were not naked when we encountered one another, I would not recognize him - nor would he, me!

In Verse 37 of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, it is found: His disciples said: When wilt Thou be revealed to us and when will we see Thee? Jesus said: When you take off all your clothing without being ashamed, and take your clothes and put them under your feet as the little children and tread on them, then you shall behold the Son of the Living One and you shall not fear.

I think it worthwhile to note that the team of experts who translated my first copy of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS from Coptic to English in 1959 (a team headed by a scholar named A. Guillaumont) chose to put certain words in capitals. Personally, I do not think I would capitalize something like “Son” of “Son of the Living One” because it implies only Jesus - and not the student of Jesus. In this case, it should be “son of the Living One” - not “Son of the Living One” because I think the one who is being revealed is myself - or yourself - as much as Jesus. Of course, it is a “mutual recognition” that takes place, but for the sake of a student, I think the really important recognition is that of oneself. You are “like Jesus” and your going naked together is a testimony of that.

Be that as it may, here is “testimony” of a kind that Jesus would like to meet with another naked individual; and it follows my line of reasoning that shame is the single most unworthy and useless and damaging concept ever dreamed up by man. My Jesus would not be one ashamed of himself - and that is why he would emphasize not needing to cover up - as shyness and fear of nakedness implies.

On the contrary, nakedness is probably the single most important “way of truth” one can pursue in life because it declares that Life Itself is Shameless. Jesus was not ashamed of Life; and neither should I be and neither should anyone else be.

I mentioned in my article on sex that “Nakedness has been my best friend” in this world - or the like. That is because Nakedness is Life. It is not shying away from Life - which so many consider to be the great virtue of life. It is embracing it because it is right and holy and wonderful - and I must add, absolutely delightful.

Would Jesus be what we call “gay”? If by that one means two of the same sex having some kind of “genital intercourse,” No; but if one means by that two of the same sex being able to embrace one another, Yes, I think Jesus would be “gay.” In that light, I am “gay” too; but I am not “gay” in the way that most understand “gay” to be.

And there again is the great “savior” of my life - Natural Design. If I were to meet Jesus naked on a trail, I doubt that Jesus and I would do more than simply embrace one another as brothers and let it go at that, but that is “me and Jesus.” I won’t define what “you and Jesus” would do. That is for you to decide, not me; and that is as it should be.

In the same light, if Jesus were walking naked with another of the opposite sex, like a Mary Magdalene, I doubt it would be any different. I think Mary and I would embrace too - and do nothing more. The ideal is to treat everyone the same. So if I were to encounter a naked couple rather than just a naked individual, then the ideal would be to embrace them both - given that one of us chose to embrace at all.

Did Jesus fear being killed for his convictions? I do not think so. Why did Jesus surrender to the authorities of his day so quickly - as we are told he did in the Gospels of the BIBLE? Why? Because he knew those authorities could not really take away anything that is indispensable. He knew that if he was killed, it would be only his body that was killed. His soul would live on; and that is why he could go forward not fearing death; and that is why all of us should go forward not fearing death.

I do not want to get into an in-depth discussion of the notion of “sacrifice” in this article, but I think I will just say that I do not believe Jesus would have considered himself a “sacrifice” because that would have implied that his death would have had some meaning outside of not fearing death itself. Jesus died on a cross, perhaps, but he did not die to “fulfill the scriptures” or any other such nonsense.

I think it worthwhile to keep in mind that when Jesus lived, he entered into a “personal God” culture - that of the Jews. The Jews believed in a “personal God” they called “Jehovah,” but whatever the name of the “God,” that God was not really a God at all, but rather just one of the “Pagan gods” of the time.

Who knows how the Pagan god, Jehovah, was born - and what human person fabricated “him” - but it is totally unlikely that the Real God could have acted like Jehovah supposedly did. Jehovah was not a “God In All” but only a “god for some.” No Real God could act like Moses claimed that Jehovah did. What Real God would kill the first born of one people - the Egyptians - and “pass over” the first born of another people - the Israelites - simply because he “favored” one race over another - in this case, Israelites over Egyptians? That is some idea of God. Isn’t it? My God can’t do that because My God must be Present IN all and Jehovah is a perfect example of “a god” that can do only for some and not for all.

Another dead give away that Jehovah was - and perhaps is - a “Pagan god” is the “Pagan” practice of sacrifice. All - or at least many - of the other Pagan gods of the time loved and demanded the rather curious practice of sacrifice. Very interesting! A god of a people demanding that they burn in sacrifice some critter of their culture to “prove” obedience. I must admit that it was this curious practice that seemed to be consistent among all “Pagans” that first alerted me to the idea that Jehovah was probably just one of the many Pagan gods of the time.

Anyway, it was out of that “curious practice” of sacrifice that Jesus was eventually claimed to be a “final sacrifice” - a sacrifice to end the general practice of sacrifice. Even today, Jesus is considered to be a “sacrifice” that was necessary to cleanse man of sin - as if the death of anything could cleanse anything of sin.

But the Jews believed in sacrifice - to Jehovah - and some Jews insisted that Jesus fit into that picture of sacrifice. Thus, they claimed that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice that would finally appease Jehovah once and for all. After Jesus, no more sacrifice was needed - or so many of the Jews of the time imagined. Eventually, those Jews who believed such emerged to become “Christian”; and many Jews of the time who believed that Jesus was the long sought and promised messiah to come measured Jesus for the very curious rite of “sacrifice.” Accordingly, when Jesus died, as all “sacrifices” had to die to please Jehovah, though Jesus was executed for other reasons, his “execution” was turned into a “sacrifice.”

What do you think? Do you think that the rite of sacrifice was useful at all? What did it do? What could it do? Would you consider it meritorious in some way to take one of your herd, kill it, and then let it go up in some smoke - as if the rising of the smoke would somehow appease the god to which you were appealing?

Now, put Jesus in that picture. If, in fact, the general practice of sacrifice gained nothing and did nothing for the people who practiced it, why should we think that the “Sacrifice of Jesus” would do anything more?

If I were to be executed for my beliefs as was Jesus, I would not consider myself a “sacrifice” for some cause. I would consider myself a “victim” of a deranged authority; and I suspect the Real Jesus would agree. For sure, I would not want to die for a cause anymore than anyone else would want to die for a cause, but if I did, know that I will not have “feared death” regardless of another taking my life; and that is the real lesson to be had from the crucifixion of Jesus.

Like all other tales about Jesus, I think it is good to keep in mind the authors of those stories and what those authors were attempting to manage with their tales. In the case of Jesus, for whatever reason, so many chose to “use Jesus” to further some cause of their own - and in so doing, “managed” to corrupt the true story of Jesus, making him an authority to fear and obey - rather than the true master of wisdom he was.

Or so, I Believe!

Let me leave you with a song I wrote a few years ago about the way I see Jesus and another about each of us being “Sons of God.” Share them as you will - and live them as you will, too. OK? I will add another song too about what I think of as “true mastery.” If I might be so bold, I think “mastery - spiritual mastery” is really easy - not hard; and “me and Jesus” could be considered to be “masters” just as everyone in this world can be. In truth, there is nothing to being a master - except being a grateful son of Life and God.

Thanks! (FWB)

Jesus Is My Way

Francis William Bessler

Laramie, Wyoming

11/27/2008

Note: Phrases in parentheses are spoken.

The rest is sung.