|
|
|
In the morning, I found out that what I saw from the bus station was the "Old Town". The new one, "The Strip", is quite different. Between them, within several miles, only these small wedding chapels are nice. Fremont, the main street from the Old Town is at least original. It has a dome that blurs the daylight and brightens the nights. Besides its purpose, every night they have a sound and light show. It is magnificent. In the middle of the street, you are in the middle of the show, feeling the strong sound with your whole body, and seeing the colorful images around.
With their looks focused toward nowhere, seeming deeply plunged in their thoughts – but probably without any – some players are still here for nobody knows when, as here time hasn’t got days or nights. Now in the morning, to us who are fresh after a good sleep, they look odd. But they are not many. Most of the visitors are only tourists who come here of curiosity. Of course, they will gamble, but not much, just for curiosity too. Oddly enough it is a high percentage of women gamblers. It seems that women —unsatisfied with their financial income — are greater in number than men. Other supposition might be ambition, or belief in luck.
The new Las Vegas consists of several huge hotels, each of them in a different architectural style. The bad taste often puts in the shade the beauty of some other nice buildings. Of course, grand floor of every hotel is full with tables and automatic gamble machines. Some hotels are still being built. Everything is made to impress, but all these would be nothing without the human spectacle. Thousands of people moving up and down give life and sense to everything. Of course, only a few come here for gambling. My principle is: “do not risk more than you intend to lose”, and I did not have money to lose. Most people come there from curiosity, just for the show. They are actors and spectators at the same time. They look at one another and think: ‘that was interesting!’ I did the same, and I am happy. I deserved this small detour that I made on my way toward California.
Las Vegas is a town where art leaps from tastelessness to the hotel’s decoration. (The second is probably well paid.) With very small exceptions, there are not art galleries, or exhibitions, probably because the space is very expensive. I do not think that people would not buy paintings at all, but nobody offers them. There are not art dealers. Probably the business with art objects would be rather small in comparison with other products. There are huge quantities of trinkets and keepsakes. Trade must take account by the visitors’ demand. If customers ask for kitsch, the merchants will offer kitsch. If nobody guides people, the common sense will go more and more down. In the past, there were those "mercenaries" of arts, some sponsors, for using a nowadays term. Of course, they did not do that without reasons. On the contrary, they had great interests. Large and well–decorated houses were necessary for showing how powerful the owners are. Also, they used to organize shows for attracting other influential people. These houses were the places where the great commercial and political actions occurred. But, for having an impressive house, the owner must take into account not his taste— good or bad— but only the good taste. Finally, his art collection and generally everything he used to do, became a standard for the good taste.
What do we do nowadays? Most customers are common people, without much education. Their demands became the standard. In the lack of a guided action, any trend is negative. This is a non–disputable law of mathematics. Consequently, we go down!
It would be sad to limit arts only at its decorative role, something that put a hatband, a small flounce to a dress or a building. It is the art that educates us. People are educated not as much thanks to Shakespeare’s poems, or Einstein’s formulas, but thanks to art, and not only by any kind of art, but art which people are able to perceive. Therefore, art must communicate.
I hardly discovered an art gallery in a big mall. A single one! For the moment I had become optimistic. Two persons working there liked my paintings, so the business was about to be concluded, I thought. It was true: they had many and very nice statues, but few and not too good paintings. Mine was looking beautiful among theirs. But, they said there is a “buyer” who decided, and he is going to come in two days. They also said that I should stay calm because the buyer takes account of their opinion, and they have already decided. I stayed two more days to discover the greatest scam I ever seen. No trace of those two people whom I talked to two days ago. The "buyer" did not want to hear of me. He works only for a group of artists.
The small hotels are not expensive in Las Vegas. The food is cheap too, but these two days were a useless expense for my budget. I remained with the memory of the Las Vegas.
There are lots of buses between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. You need not plan the travel, or to buy tickets in advance. Simply go at the bus station and go with the following bus.
I have a friend in Los Angeles, with which I correspond for seven or eight years, but this time he could not house me, because of his landlord. Eric, my friend, is a bachelor living in lodging. On my previous trip, I stayed a week with him, but then his landlords were gone off to a balloon fiesta, probably just like I saw in Albuquerque. Now it is Eric, who will visit me in the hotel. He is as tall as thin, with red hair, driving a small and old car and I always wonder how could he fit in. I know he had bought another car, also old and small. He says that it is cheaper to drive a small car, and the risk to be ransacked by thieves is minimum with an old car. The car is only a means of transport for him. He is a mathematician, but he would love to be an artist. I tried to explain to him that mathematics could be an art too, but without success.
Last time, three years ago, to my surprise, Eric informed me that one of the most important things for him is his church, where he goes every Thursday and Saturday afternoon, and Sunday mornings. First I was afraid of these new small and aberrant "one–man–churches", created by a man and then disappear with its founder. I was calmed down, learning that it is not the case. Surprisingly for me was why an intelligent and educated man, like Eric, could be so attached to a church, which certainly was not a traditional one. In Romania, the most people belong to the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and they keep their tradition. In reality people are not bigoted at all; on the contrary, too few Romanians are really religious. Anyway everybody—religious or not — goes to the church for some definite events, just because the tradition claims this: marriages, funerals, etc. To change the traditional church for another one is mainly a proof of ignorance. A real religious person may pray in any church, and our churches are open every day, for morning till night, not only during the religious services or ceremonies.
Things are different in the USA, where people came from throughout the world and brought with them all the world’s religions. It is natural for them to choose a church after their criterions. I knew persons saying they go to a certain church because that one happens to be close to their home.
Some people need religion and it as a pity that churches are no longer able to do their duty. Generally speaking, people perceive the religion in different ways, according to their nature. At the extremities, there are:
Between the two extremes, there are those more or less balanced trying to understand and take from the religion as much as it corresponds with their understanding.
As for Eric, he explained to me that he became a religious person after his brother died, and this church seemed to fit his feelings. This tragedy really affected him a lot, as more as his brother was a young man, like Erich. Everything was all right and clear so far, including Eric’s desire to make me to go along with him at the church. Generally he wanted to show me to every important person in his life. I went to his office to see his bosses and his fellow workers, to his teachers and, of course to his friends.
I became entirely calm seeing the building of the church: a large one, looking more like a theatre than a chapel. The religious service was also pleasing, except the servitude of the parishioners: they used to underline with clapping and all kind of exclamations the "brilliant" ideas of their leader’s speech. They seemed to feel thankful to have a long practice at this. Instead, the leader seemed to be a very practical–minded person, maybe too practical. What disappointed me most was the final act, when they gather close to one another and, in hierarchical tidiness, in order to receive the divine message from the leaders, who raised one hand to the sky and the other over the head of a shorter member of the leadership. And each copied the other in touching the next person until the last of the newcomers. Some of them, even Eric, declared that they feel how the Holy Spirit traverses their body. Of course I cannot believe it. Eric is a young mathematician, and his attitude looked as exaggeration or fake. (Mathematics, as symbol for the reasoning, invented irrational numbers too.)
In the last day with Eric, before leaving Los Angeles, he asked me whether I believe that Jesus is alive. Then, I avoided answering, but the question must be analyzed before giving an answer. We first need to know if he imagines a Jesus like a man who lives somewhere and looks at us, or Jesus is a symbol for the entire Christian theology. In the first hypothesis, I am not the man to discuss this topic, but at the second hypothesis the subject is quite exciting. For those who look at religion as a myth — true or false — the question is an essential one, maybe the most important. It is not my case. I remember some years ago it was in fashion the question whether Shakespeare was a man, or an enterprise dealing with books, a publisher house in our terms. As I am not a historian, the question is not interesting for my point of view. I am interested in Shakespeare’s works and not in his life. It was Schumann he wrote that only stupid musical critics speak about the composer, instead of his works. Another example, maybe just clearer, is the Marxism. There is not important at all if Marx was a great scholar, an insignificant one, or if he ever existed at all. Instead, the Marxism marked the social and political life almost the whole 20th century. It is the same with writers and, generally, with the originator of any other field, including Christianity. Yes, I am interested in Christianity, not in whatever Jesus is alive or not.
Maybe he is alive, or maybe not. Anyway, what is important is what he said to us. His message matters! Speaking about his life, it counts as a message too, because he used it as an example, as a way to convey his message to us.
Consequently, the question of the most importance is: what is Christianity? Or, more exactly, what is the Christian theology? It is difficult to answer seriously at this question, and probably people will never write enough books on this topic. Instead, they wrote lots of books with propagandistic purposes, to induce in the common people a convenient behavior according to priests’ interests. Bible was intensely used and misinterpreted, which makes things more complicated, because any different idea is immediately rejected, just because it is different. Any religion is conservative.
Many times, maybe most times, the priests themselves did not understand the Christian message, or more probably did not want to understand. Why? Because their interest was not to guide people, to teach them, but to keep them at their disposal! That’s why their recommendations sometimes were just in opposition with these of the Christian teaching. Often they embraced the older ideas, the pre–Christian ones, because such ideas are more useful and accordingly to priest’s interests. Fear and humility are among their spurs. They changed the word ’idols’ with ’God’ but kept the same attitude in front of them.
Christianity gave us the humanism and the dignity, not the lack of it. As for the Apocalypse, this is a monument of non–Christianity.
Much part of the Old Testament is history: the history of Jewish people. The modern historians and archaeological diggings have brought to light that many facts reported in the book were true. As a matter of fact, the most part of the Old Testament, particularly its beginning, was written during the exile of Jewish in Babylon, when — feeling that they are lost — thought that it would be a pity if nobody learn about their history and life. Many times, the authors exaggerated some facts, flourished or described them in the form of fiction, as they— the authors—were writers and mostly priests. The Bible is a book of wisdom as well. Wisdom—what a great word! All of us want to be wise people, but nobody knows whether he really is. Whatever their opinion about themselves would have been, the authors of the Bible were some scholars of that time, and involved themselves as spiritual leaders. Some paragraphs were entirely written in a metaphoric style, just for sending a message. These ones made possible the freest interpretations.
The Bible itself is not homogeneous. Some ideas are in contradiction with other ideas, if you read different chapters. We may have understanding for its authors. They had to change some old ideas with other new ones. As it usually happens, they could not do it suddenly and with accuracy. Not even we can do it. Some reminiscences from older mentality stay put. Besides, more than one author wrote the Bible, in different periods of time. We can remark the way in which some ideas progressed in the authors’ conception.
This remark is true as well in case you want to believe that Bible was written under the divine inspiration. You may accept then, either that God changed his ideas, or he has a plan and, from time to time, gives us lessons according to our evolution, or enhances both.
Also, you must remark that people throughout the world are God’s children, and – if they are of different religions – this is so because God wants so. Consequently, there are not wrong or right religions, only God’s different projects.
If we are as we are, there are two variants:
Anyway, if God has put a curtain between Him and us, we should keep respectfully His will, and not try to imagine all kind of things occurring beyond the curtain. God shows Himself to every of us according to our imagination and understanding.
Coming back to the Bible, for me, it is an important book, maybe the most important, but I read it permanently wondering what was the genuine message of the authors, either under the divine inspiration or not.
But, what is Christianity? For understanding it, we have to look around and especially in the past. Thinking to the past, we must begin with the Old Testament, from which we learn about God in opposition with idols. It was a good step, but it was not the first at all. Before it, Jewish people envisaged a God only for their nation, and made from Judaism a national religion. This was good for them, but not for the others. Why they did this way it is accountable, we can infer it, but this is their problem, and maybe their mistake. Christianity extended the concept of a God for all nations and turned the attitude face to divinity from fear of love. The idols were pitiless, and would ask for sacrifice from the one who wanted to gain their goodwill. On the opposite God is benevolent, benefactor, and does not want immolation. He wants for us only to have a decent behavior, because we are his children, and he is the Father.
Changing the God of the people of Israel into a Universal Divinity, the Christians turned God into a new idol. The only difference is that God is not materialized into an object or a being. As for God’s kindness, even if it is frequently asserted, the Bible contains much more paragraphs destined to terrify the man, to implant in his soul the fear of a merciless final judgment of God. Guilty for all these are the priests. It is understandable too, as they preferred the old and verified method of fear in order to keep the people under their control. That’s why we must discern between the genuine good intentions, and the result that is noticeable by some people’s subsequent benefit.
But the priests are not guilty only of these. Their mistakes provoked all kind of schisms, ending with all the sects that appeared in our time like the mushrooms after the rain. Almost all the people I talked with — belonging to no matter which sect — were ignorant enough not only concerning the religion, but also about history and about knowledge in general.
Is Jesus alive or not? The question comes again in my mind, even if I said that it is not so important. Some people ask if Jesus really existed as a human being. Roman documents do not mention him at all, or we know that in Roman Empire they used to record in official reports every remarkable event. Even this question is not so important, because what followed was what really matters – namely Christianity – with its priests as well. Jesus was not the Messiah expected by the Jewish people. Although Christos, means messiah in Greek language and for sure he was the prophet of Christianity, which begins with him and find in his life its philosophy and meaning. What really counts is just this philosophy and meaning.
The idea of a good divinity was not new. The Greeks advanced it long time ago, and it would have been impossible for Jewish people not to know it. At that time, the Apostle Paul himself was a Jew from Greece—Tars is in nowadays Turkey. And was him who first made great efforts in his epistles to the Romans in showing that God is for all the people, not only for Jews. As for a good–hearted divinity, the Greek philosophers prepared people for it. If we study attentively the Mythology, beyond the stories, we shall find a humanist doctrine. Gods used to be like people, with human qualities and defects. The gods just were more powerful. In the meantime, some Greek philosophers had risen against the gods’ exaggerate power, wanting a more kind–hearted divinity. So was Aeschylus with his "Prometheus”— bounded, liberated and fire–bringer— and "Orestes", and many others, long before Jesus Christ. The idea of a loving–people divinity used to be already present. "Because the Jews need a sign, and the Greeks seek wisdom". It is not me who say this. It is written in 1 Corinthians 1:22.
Jesus was a prophet because he conveyed ideas from the philosophers to the common people. On this purpose he gave his life. In general a prophet is someone able to understand philosophy, and able to communicate with people— which philosophers cannot do. Socrates had already made the supreme sacrifice for his ideas. He was aware that only through his death his ideas would survive. And he accepted to drink the cup with hemlock.
It is true, Jesus Christ was a Jew from Palestine, but it was only the spark that arouses the fire. Christianity appears as a religion of poor people giving them a hope. Not far from Palestine, Greece was under the Roman occupation too. It is not accidental that the apostle Paul was from Greece. Later on, the Jews kept the Judaic faith, while the Greeks adopted Christ’s religion immediately. After Jesus, Christianity spread worldwide— at the outset in the Roman Empire, apart from Palestine.
The first useless story assumed to be from the Old Testament is Genesis. I suppose that it was not conceived as a cosmogony, but as a metaphor full of teachings and of moral consequences—being in this way a useful educational guide. It is a metaphor of what? Of an early period of Jewish history! From it, the priests elaborated a cosmogony, which – due to its naivety – has compromised the Christian religion entirely. Of course, God could not be like us. He should help us more if He is Almighty. Then who was he for the Jewish people? Let’s read the Bible!
In Genesis 27, it is said: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground".... Not from mud, clay, or simple earth? It is not mentioned that He would use water. I think it had to be difficult to mould in dust. Is this a mistake, or an accidental expression? Not at all! From the next paragraph we learn that: "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." So Eden has a point on the compass. It is interesting! From the paragraphs 10 to 14 we learn that: "a river went out of Eden to water the garden. And from there it was parted, and became into four heads". Their names are Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel (Tigris) and Euphrates. We can’t help thinking that Eden is the old Sumer and what the Sumerian civilization means for old times. Yes, Sumer used to be a pleasing and charming place in comparison with the surrounding areas, namely exact what this word means in their language. God probably was a Sumerian king, who accepted a Jewish tribe on his territory for different works. This seems to have been the best period in history for the Jews. And that king was God for them— their father—because he made them men. They were like dust and became like the Sumerians. This is the correct meaning when one says that God made man like him, and not that a divinity could look like us. As the Jews did not keep the arrangement, and they aimed higher than they’ve been allowed—tasting from the tree of knowledge— the king ordered their expulsion. More than it, observing the sin committed by Adam and Eve, God declared: “the man has become like one of us”...(Genesis 322). Consequently, God was not alone. He did not speak that man would be “like me”, but “like us”. He spoke in the name of the leadership of Sumer and accuses the Jews that they exceeded their rights as employees, infiltrating themselves among the employers. We see now why in the whole history recorded in the Bible, with all its details, Sumer does not appear at all. That is so because it was the beginning. It was The Heaven. In their entire history after that, the Jews don’t do anything else but beg God’s forgiveness, hopping to be accepted again in Eden’s garden.
Also, archaeological discoveries show Sumer to be the place where biblical deluge occurred. Sam, hence the adjective Semite, was the elder son of Noah. It is clear that in the ancient times Jewish people crossed through Sumer, and they could not avoid going through that place, but they gave it a metaphoric sense.
Consequently, the Bible is not a cosmogony, and this is commendable for their authors. Priest’s foolishness created this endorsement of history. Do you need a cosmogony? I can imagine a pseudo–cosmogony, but it will not be religious at all. Still it is not without meaning. I shall write it, and so you will find it later.
Do you want to know what Christianity is? You must start from the older faiths and find out what is new. For example, unlike older faiths, where the divinities were menacing and revengeful, God is mild and forgiving. This is one of the most important characteristic features of the Christian theology. Doing such comparisons, you will understand more. Only in this way you will be able to understand what the Christian theology really is.
Maybe a part of the Bible was written under the divine inspirations, but surely not entirely. It is full of priests’ wishes and ideas—some of them belonging to the Jews. There were also many other writings. What was accepted to be "The Bible" is a selection of what some priests considered being appropriate. As any human deed, it could be not perfect. This is one more reason to read the Bible in an intelligent way.
Children know a lot about the Bible. But, in time, as they grow up, their faith diminishes. First, a child learns that Santa —who after a thrilling waiting— gives him presents, and fills his soul with joy. Santa himself was not a fabulous celebrity, but a well–known individual, and everything was only a little theatrical, specially staged for children. After such a deception, it is almost a logical consequence to come to the conclusion that the whole religion is a story for children— in which he stops to believe when he no longer consider being a child. Later on, he learns at school that, in the name of Christianity, people made the greatest atrocities—inquisition, crusades, etc. And when he finds that priests are not the most educated people, are his or her elders, his or her religious faith is completely wiped off. The endeavor to preach the Bible to a grown–up only with some biblical stories and its threatening has no more chances.
For all that, the religion is still necessary. Where is the mistake? I think it is in the weak quality of the priests. They do only their duty of keeping the religious service. They ceased to be people’s confessors, and most times have not the necessary intellectual level. They are not able to respond to the every day’s life matters. Frequently the parishioners are more educated.
Coming back to the children, the priests do not know how to preserve the contact with children. When the children learn that Santa is not real, the priest should explain that any story has meaning, and the meaning counts. "God has established a moral code, which he wishes his children to adopt." It is Aeschylus who wrote this, five centuries before Jesus.
 |  |  |
|
|
|