An Exclusive Interview With Jesus Christ

We all know what Jesus thought about major social issues of his own days on Earth, matters such as the stoning of adulteresses, the payment of taxes to Rome, how to respond when smitten on the cheek, and so forth. But there are many moral questions that we have to decide today on which Jesus's position is not immediately obvious.

Fortunately, Jesus, as everyone who has read the gospel accounts of his life knows, taught his followers to regard God as a personal god to whom they could speak as they would speak to a loving father. It was in this spirit, therefore, that we invited Jesus to join us on this blog for an exclusive interview via Skype*, a request that Jesus, now a member of the Holy Trinity, and thus the voice of God, very graciously agreed to.

Without further ado, then, here is our conversation.

Christianity and the Death of the West

There are five things you need to know about a religion to understand its present and future role in shaping a civilization.

First, what is the moral code that it teaches?

Second, what is the way of life that it teaches?

Third, what are the beliefs that compel acceptance of its teachings?

Fourth, what support do the justifying beliefs of the faith receive from non-religious institutions?

Fifth, what are the consequences of the faith for society as a whole?

Atheist detractors of religion would like to add a sixth item to the list; namely, what is the truth of the justifying beliefs of the faith. But that is to misunderstand the role of religion in the foundation and survival of a civilization. Religion is founded on myths not historical truth, and its value is to be judged by its fruits; namely, the civilization to which it gives rise.

Here I consider the five key questions about Christianity as the foundation and defender of Western civilization.

1. The Moral Code of a Christian

The moral code of a Christian is nowhere fully and explicitly stated. Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews and his teachings stemmed from a deep knowledge of the Jewish religious tradition. But Jesus was not a literate man and left no written account of his ideas. Jesus's disciples were, likewise, not literate, and left no record of their life in the company of Jesus. Thus, the only record we have of Jesus`s teachings are by persons unknown, the gospel authors who wrote a generation or more after the death of Jesus and who thus had no direct knowledge of what he said or did, and who in all probability had axes of their own to grind.

What we can say, however, given his Jewish roots and hist adherence to the Jewish faith, is that Jesus accepted the Mosaic law, known to Christians as the Ten Commandments. Moreover, it is uncontroversial to say that the Commandments constitute the bedrock of the Christian moral code.

Beyond the Commandments, Jesus taught the virtues of charity, modesty, forgiveness, and love, particularly love for the poor, the sick, the lame and those who have transgressed the moral law.

Last, but not least, Jesus taught the virtue of martyrdom, seeking for himself  a cruel death by crucifixion thereby enabling the miracle of the resurrection, which proved the divine inspiration of his teaching.

2, The Life of a Christian

Jesus was no recluse and he had no time for empty religious formality. He mixed with the common working people, sinners and tax gatherers. To Jesus, then, religion was not about ritual and religious ceremony, but about how life is to be lived by ordinary people.

In his preaching, which was to the common people and in his conversation with the disciples, Jesus redefined the concept of God. God, Jesus taught, was not a being in the mold of an oriental despot of whom one should be greatly afraid, but a loving and forgiving spirit, who knows one's most intimate thoughts and, like a father, is ever attentive to the needs of those who turn to him for help.

Psychologically, this redefinition of God is a profoundly important development in religious practice. It compels the believer to consider his problems with complete honesty for, in praying about them to God, he speaks with a being that sees his every thought and knows the truth of every word he utters. Prayer, as Jesus prescribed it, thus becomes an exercise requiring complete honesty in confronting dilemmas and difficulties, an approach that opens the mind to new possibilities. Thus, as the atheistic Winston Churchill remarked, "in times of fear or perplexity, I pray to God and it helps. It helps a lot."

In the Sermon on the Mount, surely the most unorthodox statement in Jesus's ministry, Jesus urged the forgiveness of enemies, the loving of enemies, and the doing good to enemies. Such a teaching seems to fly in the face of all practical reality.

If a mugger demands your Rolex, give him your wallet too? Yeah, suuuuuure.

But Jesus well knew the limits and frailty of human goodness. By demanding extreme tolerance of those who take advantage of us, Jesus taught that we should not be quick to anger, and that we should not show forbearance for kith and kin alone? As such, the message of the Sermon on the Mount conveyed a lesson of profound importance for the future of Western civilization, expanding the range of human sympathy, and thus creating scope for productive collaboration among strangers in an ever expanding social world.

In laying down his own life for the instruction of humanity, Jesus inspired the deaths of a multitude of Christian matyrs, soldiers, and an even greater number of those who, while not making the ultimate sacrifice, nevertheless devoted much of their life's work to the benefit of others.

3. The Beliefs that Justify Adherence to the Christian Code and Way of Life

The beliefs that Justify adherence to the Christian moral code and way of life are various, but most include a belief in (i) the existence of God, the creator of the World who takes a loving interest in human affairs; and (ii) a life after death, the nature of which, happy or hideous, depends on the way we have led our lives here on earth. [Technically, according to the great Christian churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran, hope of a heavenly afterlife does not require virtue here on Earth, only belief in the risen Christ, but that idea is surely only for the very simple minded.]

4. The Support Christian Faith Receives From Non-Religious Institutions in the West

Today, Christian faith in the West receives essentially no support from any public institutions, but rather is under continual attack from academia, broadcasters both public and private, the media in general, Hollywood and the the book publishing industry, the latter having a profitable line in atheistic propaganda from the Hitchens's to the Dawkins's, and all the other pseudo-intellectuals who offer a pathetically adolescent critique of religion.

5. What Has Been the Chief Influence of Christianity on Western Society

The influence of Christian faith on Western civilization has been fundamental. Christian ideas underpin the Western tradition of an open society in which people interact cooperatively and productively based on a mutually understood moral code requiring adherence to basic decency in dealing not only with family and friends but with everyone. It was thus Christianity that enabled the emergence of an open meritocratic society that proved to be the most scientifically and artistically creative and industrially productive civilization the World has yet witnessed.

To answer the questions posed in the title of this piece, it is evident that organized Christianity has been a vital institution of Western civilization and that its deliberate destruction by the forces of Political Correctness and globalist interests in the service of the international Money Power means the destruction of the West, a process already evident in widespread decline, decadence, depravity and despair.

Jesus, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Guns

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

... do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Matthew 5-7 (New International Version)

Leo Tolstoy held that government, of its nature, is always corrupt and oppressive, using its power to tax, conscript, fine or otherwise punish to impel citizens to participate in actions totally at odds with the principles of decency and honor that the state claims to uphold.

Tolstoy illustrated his argument by reference to the hypocrisy of the Russian state, headed by a supposedly Christian autocrat, deploying with the full support of the Christian Orthodox Church millions of men and untold wealth in the murderous pursuit of imperial aggrandizement.

But, Tolstoy argued, the evil of state tyranny can be defeated by the practical application of the Sermon on the Mount.

What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an incident as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call them, refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the government, refusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in military service?
These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in such incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than anything else, that will undermine the power of the state and prepare the way for the freedom of men. 

And the power of the Russian state was undermined, if due less to the passive resistance of Tolstoyans than to the onslaught of the German Army. But its collapse did not "prepare the way for the freedom of men," it led rather to an even more absolute autocracy, headed by men who despised Christianity, held Tolstoy's ideas in contempt and proceeded readily to the slaughter of tens of millions of their own citizens.

Which leads one to reflect on the  beliefs of Mohandas Gandhi, whose nationalist campaign of non-violent opposition to British Imperial rule in India was directly inspired by Tolstoy's understanding of of Christianity. Unlike Tolstoy's Russian followers, who had little impact on Russia's Tzarist regime and were mostly shot or imprisoned by the Soviet state, the efforts of Gandhi and his followers culminated in the attainment of Indian independence under a popularly elected goverment, which raises two questions:

What was the difference between British India and Tsarist Russia that accounted for the vastly different results achieved in the two countries by those committed to non-violent opposition to an oppressive state? And what moral and practical lessons should one draw from this difference in outcome?

One difference, it would seem, is that Christian principles are more likely to prevail if exercised against oppression by those who are at least nominally Christian and who, however degraded their Christianity, at least understand the point being made by their opponents. And indeed, during the interwar years, as the British establishment formed the intention to quit India, the British were remarkably susceptible to moral arguments against war and imperialism, desperate as all political parties were to avoid a repetition of the carnage of World War 1. In contrast, the Russian revolution was led by psychopaths with an utter loathing of the old Russian regime and a ruthless determination to stamp out any opposition to their will.

That circumstances alter cases, and that moral suasion does not trump all evil was firmly believed by Gandhi, who was by no means unconditionally committed to pacifism. During the Boer War, Gandhi served the British forces in the only capacity that an Indian in South Africa could, as a member of an ambulance unit.  And during the First World War Gandhi encouraged Indians to volunteer for military service, contending that by helping Britain, India would come to be seen as a powerful  independent nation and an ally of England's rather than a subordinate entity.

Confirming that his adherence to Tolstoy's Christian ideals was purely tactical, Gandhi wrote:

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

Which leaves one to wonder how Jesus and Tolstoy would have viewed the events of the Twentieth Century, for the correct understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is not altogether clear. To say "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment" is by no means the same as saying "anyone who is angry with a Joseph Stalin, an Idi Amin or some other monster, will be subject to judgment."

To show forbearance and love to ones brothers and sisters, or to members of ones community or tribe, must often if not always be the best policy since the kindness and generosity will surely be remembered and at some time reciprocated. But forbearance and love of a homicidal psychopath intent on one's destruction seems not only different but, well, crazy.

Jesus it is true, went to his death deliberately, calmly and with forgiveness of those who had condemned him, which was entirely consistent with his teaching. Yet did he do so under a misapprehension? That is one interpretation of those heart-breaking words, cried in a loud voice in the agony of crucifixion: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

As for Tolstoy, who served valiantly with the Russian army during the Crimean war, who loved hunting, and who was both irascible and impulsive, it is hard to believe that faced with the monstrosity of the Soviet tyranny and Lenin's ten thousand leather-jacketed Cheka intent on the extermination of all opposition he would not have contemplated resistance with an assault rifle.

To some, these speculations may seem sadly misguided, in which case I would be glad to know what they think.