The Christ Conundrum.

Most scholars consider Buddhism to be a religion, and think of Hinduism as a family of religions. Buddhism admittedly lacks one ingredient that the Abrahamic tradition regards as central :god(s). But many scholars think of religion as a set of additional traits--code, creed, cultus and community.--and consider a belief system to be a religion if it has most of them. In the case of Buddhism, there is code (e.g., the five precepts), creed (e.g., the four noble truths, eightfold path, etc.), cultus (rituals and meditation 7 Common Rituals in Buddhism.), and community the sangha. It isn't oriented toward worship of gods, but in the Mahayana tradition the celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas seem to be the functional equivalents of saints. Hinduism is exceptionally complex, but at one level has more gods than you can shake a stick at, all of which are manifestations of the Brahman, of which, in monistic traditions, tat tvam asi (you are that).

You are certainly correct that doctrine and correct belief are more important in Christianity than in any other religion. Self-reliance in the quest for inner truth is most characteristic of the Theravada tradition in Buddhism--Mahayana not so much. Belief system is looser in Buddhism, but I think most practicing Buddhists (in Asia, at least) accept the three baskets, the four noble truths, the five precepts, the eightfold path, etc., which are certainly belief systems. Mahayana throws in the Lotus Sutra.

I call myself a Christian because I believe in the ideas that God is Love and that love of God and neighbor, especially society's rejects, is the guiding principle of my life and the hope for the salvation of the world. I call it Christian because I find it expressed most compellingly in the Gospels of the New Testament, and I like to give credit where credit is due. The term "Progressive Christianity' is admittedly loose, much like Progressive Democrat, and fuzzy at the boundaries, but useful enough in describing an orientation to Christianity which is distinct from traditional Christianity--especially the fundamentalist variety. My principal fellowship group is in the Methodist church, and I also take fellowship with a group of Disciples of Christ (First Christian). While my group of Methodists meet, a group of traditional Christians meet downstairs in the same church. We and they are essentially two different religions under the same roof, but get together afterwards for the service. As described by Roger Wolsey in Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don't Like Christianity:
"Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord; emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God's immanence not merely God's transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive)."

One part of that passage that deserves attention is panentheism, not to be confused with pantheism. We believe that God is immanent as well as transcendent. Unlike those Protestant theologians which stress that God is "wholly other" (which He is) we also see Him as immanent--as the Qur'an says, closer to us than our jugular vein (Quran 50:16)--the Higher Power " in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) My own conversion to Christianity was the result of a moment of clarity (religious experience, psychotic break, whatever ) that started with a new understanding of Gen.1:26, which I came to understand in terms of the Hindu concept of the atman. So I think of my relationship to God as an ongoing experience of discovery.

As for those "basic tenets of Christianity", Progressive Christians believe that Jesus' message of Love is the basic hermeneutic that trumps all formulas. I recall after reciting the Apostle's creed in church saying to my wife: "I don't believe any of this stuff. She replied: "I don't pay any attention. It's just words." In Deeper Than Words, Brother David Steindl-Rast provides a guide by which the words can be reinterpreted, so that Progressive Christians can say them with a straight face.

That's a good question. I think looking at it objectively, it doesn't make sense at all. Why did Jesus make his debut in 1 C.E (or a couple of years earlier by some estimates) when humans had been around for 6 million years? One answer, popular among Calvinists, would be: because that's the way God wanted to do it, and who are you, fallible human that you are, to question it. Progressive Christians take an historical-metaphorical approach: because the Jewish tradition developed the idea of a Messiah who would deliver Israel, conditions were ripe at the time for a messianic figure to emerge (witness the large number of them in that locality), and one claimant had a message that caught on when the others failed. It's certainly clear why it didn't happen in Rome, since it was Roman oppression that triggered it. It was a pretty important message, that might be described as "divine", or just an idea that some of us are willing to live and die for.

 

Ok , choose to be society's reject . What happens ?

 

So much for omnipotent...

 

I prayed today, and I'm inspired by the power of prayer. It fascinates me how the mind reacts to prayer... It's like someone turned on the light switch for me.

 

Prayer and Meditation (not to be confused with dogmatic religious trappings) are scientifically proven to work.

Brain imaging and subsequent states of healing / well-being are well documented by reputable neuroscientific authorities.

 

Thank you for sharing those pearls of wisdom, whatever they may mean.

 

If our love ain't rational how can we expect unconditional, unfathomable, furious love to be rational?

 

Good-bye , fool .

 

That is not prayer.

Wishing someone, other than oneself, kindness, better health, some decent shoes to get around in, a pair of glasses they cannot afford to buy, or for oneself to find the wisdom to stop coveting silly trappings of vanity (like unnecessary cars) is more akin to the "prayer" and "meditation" I was referring to.

Prayer is about selflessness and humility - not selfishness and vanity. At least the prayer that "works".

 

Or possibly you don't understand it. When you ask questions like "what is post-liberalism, what is post-modernism? what are "immanence and transcendence" I gather you're a newcomer to this field of study, and newcomers tend to find unfamiliar landscapes odd. What's odd about it? Now fundamentalist Christianity--that's really odd! But more familiar.

It's Wosley's definition which I quoted because I think it's relatively accurate, although not necessarily the way I'd put it in every detail. I'm sure you recognize the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" in politics. The terms are somewhat analogous in the context of religion. Liberal Christianity was rooted in the Enlightenment tradition, emphasizing the importance of reason and science over doctrine. Post-liberalism retains those perspectives but moves beyond them by recognizing that other world religions are sources of spiritual truth; that Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on truth; and that the Bible should be taken seriously, but not always literally; and that love, peace and social justice are the central Christian values. Postmodernism is generally understood to describe an attitude of skepticism toward grand ideas and ideologies, which are regarded as instruments for maintaining political or economic power. To put it simply, Progressive Christianity is more concerned with Jesus example and message while He was alive rather than his death and resurrection, which seemed to be Paul's obsessions. And about living a good life in this world rather than "getting to Heaven" in the next.

It depends on what we mean by divine. Often that refers to a supernatural being. To me "supernatural" is just something science hasn't figured out yet. Jesus is Savior in the sense that following his teachings and example provide the potential for overcoming many human problems. He is Lord in the sense that embracing his example and submitting to His dharma will bring us salvation. And He is Christ (a Greek way of saying Messiah) in delivering us from bondage.

Why is the Buddha needed? Why not just do the right thing? First of all, I think the teachings of both Masters is needed to discern what "the right thing" is. Second, since my idea of the right thing is taken from teachings attributed to Jesus, acknowledging this gives credit where credit is due. Third. when trying to identify myself to people who inquire about my religion, Christianity is the best approximation I can come up with, and Christianity can't be separated from the teachings and practices attributed to Jesus.

If you're unfamiliar with the terms, you might start with a standard dictionary. Immanent means "existing within"; transcendent means "beyond the range of normal or merely physical experience." What is the difference between immanence and transcendence? These terms are commonly used in theology. When we say God is both trascendent , we mean that God is outside time and space and is ineffable (nirguna)--that from which all words recoil. (Sankracharya). When we say God is immanent, we mean God is within us. 1 Cor.#:16; John 14:23; Ephesians 3:17; 2 Timothy 1:14. Think Attman.

I think of Him as not just another wise man but as the wise man whose wisdom comes closest to what I regard as ultimate meaning-- a term I also use to describe God. So in that metaphorical sense, I think of Jesus as divine. Admittedly, this might seem bland in comparison with virgin births, walking on water, rising from the dead, etc., but as a guide to living, peace, love and understanding aren't chopped liver.

I'd agree. If you read the passage, though, I said this would be the way a Calvinist would answer you question. The way I would answer it is the part dealing with Jewish history.

It has to do with when and why Jesus emerged as messianic figure. The tradition of a messiah developed in the 3rd century BCE, when King David was annointed as the first Messiah.The expectation was that another such figure would come from the House of David, which is why there are two contradictory accounts (in Matthew and Luke) about why Jesus was born in Bethlehem,

Seems like that happens all the time to me.[/QUOTE]Not really. Historically, there was an unprecedented flurry of messianic activity in Palestine around the turn of the century when Jesus was born:Theudas, a man known as "The Egyptian",Athronges, Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea,Judas the Galilean, Menahem, Simon son of Giora,and Simon son of Kochba, all claiming to be the Messiah before Jesus, all executed by the Romans.

Sure Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, the Assyrians made off with the lost tribes of Israel never to be seen again, the Babylonian kept the Jews in captivity in the 6th century BCE, and the Seleucids oppressed the Jews in the 2nd century BCE. But it wasn't until Jesus' time that there was the flurry of messianism that I just described. That was directed against the Romans and their Jewish collaborators.

Long dead.

What is the point of entering into these discussions if you've made up your mind at the outset? You seem to be advancing a straw man argument based on assumptions that the authentic understanding of Christianity is fundamentalism and that the fundamentalist notion that an omniscient omnipotent supernatural entity chose to intervene to save humanity at a given point in history.is fatal to Christianity because you can't see a logical reason for Him doing so. But God, whatever (S)he may be, is probably not some dude in the Sky pulling strings. Much of the Bible is metaphor. Even Calvin recognized that the anthropomorphic depictions of God in the Old Testament involved a certain dumbing down to convey difficult truths to the masses. Christianity, like other religions, developed as a result of a long process of cultural evolution which is still going on. The Bible isn't the "word of God", but rather the words of humans seeking God.

Yes, Paul's notion of sacrifice and substitutionary atonement became the prevailing Christian interpretation in the West, but there are alternatives that Progressive Christians tend to prefer. Saved From God? Alternatives to Penal Substitution Atonement Theory As for where why Jesus (and God) do anything about the Nazis, traditional Christians would point out that his mission wasn't to save us from bad people but to save us from ourselves. Some non-believers get hung up on the theosophy question: If there is a God, why do bad things happen in the world? It should be obvious by now that if there is a God (S)he doesn't see protection humans from bad outcomes as high priority. God is a great mystery, and human efforts to understand God are likely to be as successful as my dog's efforts to figure me out and know why I get so pissed when he shits on the rug. My own concept of God is closest to the Hindu Brahman. My own answer about why Jesus didn't do anything about the Nazis that He died nearly 2000 years earlier.

 

I thought I explained that. "Liberal Christianity was rooted in the Enlightenment tradition, emphasizing the importance of reason and science over doctrine. Post-liberalism retains those perspectives but moves beyond them by recognizing that other world religions are sources of spiritual truth; that Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on truth; and that the Bible should be taken seriously, but not always literally; and that love, peace and social justice are the central Christian values. Postmodernism is generally understood to describe an attitude of skepticism toward grand ideas and ideologies, which are regarded as instruments for maintaining political or economic power."

For a better understanding of Progressive Christianity, you might try Prof. Delwin Brown's What Does a Progressive Christian Believe. The important distinction is between Progressive Christians and traditional ones, but he also draws a distinction with Liberal Christians, which he thinks are too concerned with accommodating society's latest trends and values--in other words, not radical enough. More specifically, I've been influenced by Borg theology and by the Jesus Seminar, Bishop Spong, John Dominick Crossan, Adam Hamilton and Rob Bell. The term "postmodernism" may raise hackles, but in the context of Progressive theology refers to the comparative, critical study of religious meta-narratives and an historical-metaphorical approach to scripture.
From ProgressiveChristianity.org ProgressiveChristianity.org : The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity
“By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…

1. Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;
2. Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;
3. Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:
   • Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,
   • Believers and agnostics,
   • Women and men,
   • Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
   • Those of all classes and abilities;
4. Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression
   of what we believe;
5. Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;
6. Strive for peace and justice among all people;
7. Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;
8. Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.”

Are there any of those you take issue with?

The "false base" being? The example and teachings of Jesus? Tell me how that "base" is false and the teachings and example of the Buddha or the Vedas true. Or are they?

lol. We live in a country where "those who believe their religion is the true religion" are the political largest component base for the greatest grifter the White House has ever seen. Traditional Christianity is notorious for that brand of chauvinism. So I think it's significant step forward that some Christians are questioning that stance. The snake is badly in need of legs.

I'm not sure I agree. I see religion and science as distinct but complementary paths to truth. Science is the gold standard of human knowledge, but its strengths are its limitations. It involves rigorous empirical testing of falsifiable propositions. When propositions aren't falsifiable or can't be tested empirically, science is of little use. Karen Armstrong distinguishes between two forms of knowledge: logos and mythos. Logos (science and reason) is primarily concerned with functioning effectively in the world by keeping us in touch with the material world and universe around us. Mythos (Religion) helps us to deal with aspects of life which the scientific method and logic can't readily or fully answer in a satisfying way. "Religion is about helping us to deal with the sorrow that we see in life, helping us to find meaning in life, and helping us to live in relation to (transcendent values). Religious people are ambitious. They want to feel enhanced. They want to feel at peace within themselves. They want to live generous lives. They want to live beyond selfishness, beyond ego." But religion must always be consistent with science and reason, and I think must be supported by substantial evidence--enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable people might not be convinced.

The "false base" being? The example and teachings of Jesus? Tell me how that "base" is false and the teachings and example of the Buddha or the Vedas true.

A "deity". The Dude or Dudess in the Sky. Progressive theologians seem to have moved beyond that and look to a greater transcendence lying beyond those--the God beyond God, greater than anything we can understand. I use the term "God" to describe the felt presence of a Higher Power--the Great Mystery "in whom we live and move and have our being."

There are by tradition 330 million devas in the Hindu pantheon. Yet practitioners of bakti yoga usually worship only one. Otherwise, their devotion might lack focus and energy. There are many men and women I greatly admire and learn from. Yet the principal object of my devotion is Jesus, because I find in His teachings and example the main exemplar of meaning and morality for my life.

Seriously? I assume Christ is with me the same way my mother is with me: as a set of thoughts and memories in my brain and consciousness.

What I said was that "supernatural" is just something that doesn't fit into our scientific paradigms--at least yet. No, transcendent isn't necessarily the same as supernatural. Transcedent can refer to mystical experiences which presumably are inner states of consciousness. As previously mentioned, I became a Christian as a result of one of those. My impression of it is that it would be consistent with alteration of brain function described by Persinger, or perception of non-physical aspects of reality described by Eastern mystics. Mystical Experience: Brain Function or Transcendent State

Sorry, by definition, ineffable can't be fully explained, and if it can be used to justify an orthodox supreme Christian God, tough toenails. Would you allow that there are things about the multiverse that science can't (yet) explain? That "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (or science?)." If we call them "supernatural" does that make them spooky? Einstein famously described quantum entanglements as "spooky action at a distance"--the phenomenon of quantumnon-locality. Science can give it a name, but that's not quite the same as understanding it. Immediately after the Kuiper belt beyond Neptune, there’s a sudden unexpected drop in the density of icy rocks. Why is that? Is it supernatural? Why does the universe seem "finely tuned", in the sense that if the values of any of certain constants differed only slightly from those observed , the evolution of the Universe would have been radically altered, making life impossible. Just luck? Or take the most immediately accessible experience we have--our consciousness. Most neruo-scientists assume it's caused by the brain, but one neuroscientist, Atheist "horseman" Sam Harris isn't sure, and if it is, we don't understand how. The Mystery of Consciousness | Sam Harris
The Mystery of Consciousness II | Sam Harris
To invoke the supernatural as explanations, as has been done in the past to explain the unexplainable, would be to invoke what Richard Dawkins calls the "god of gaps". We should probably store them in the X-files for now.

No, I'm relying on history., and specifically
Aslan's Zealot (2013),xxiii-xxiv;
PSEUDO-MESSIAHS - JewishEncyclopedia.com
List of Jewish messiah claimants - Wikipedia Yes,"people have been claiming divine powers, wisdom, direction, even divinity itself for eons", but not that many were claiming to be the Jewish messiah. Historically, there were a rash of those near the turn of the first century BCE.
"The pseudo-Messiahs begin to appear with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, when Rome commenced its work of crushing the independence of Judea. For the maintenance of the endangered state the people looked forward to a Messiah." PSEUDO-MESSIAHS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

? You're saying it's a "cop out" for me to say Christianity developed when and where it did because "the Jewish tradition developed the idea of a Messiah who would deliver Israel, conditions were ripe at the time for a messianic figure to emerge (witness the large number of them in that locality), and one claimant had a message that caught on when the others failed." Seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Do you have a better one? (it's either that or Divine fiat).

I'm stopping here for now.

 

I think it's interesting that Karen said that; and I'm glad she thinks about it! But I can't say that I agree (about Mythos dealing in a lack there of or something, having some relationship to the other brand of thought...). I feel a member of society because integration has been formally expressed (implemented?) in my life. I have an upbringing in this. My original soul is firmly affixed to it.

SO what do I mean by that... I think of other religions, as well as my own, as a membership in faith. And with those who "believe", I see - We see. I put a lot of emphasis on the ability to think critically as the member of a collective - like not a borg cube though ...

So, to think effectively (with your brain - yes, thought itself) your membership to a society is absolutely relevant! It's almost worth saying it's important that you have a membership and without a doubt consider yourself a member.

Are we agreeing that Mythos simply alleviates some curiosity that Logos fails to address? It's definitely not that if you ask me. But everything that you said about science being the gold standard is true - for academic knowledge in particular. I wouldn't call that introspection in a million years or confuse it with the benefits of religion.

Science often times seems to seek to disprove religion; maybe that's a fallacy or an abuse by some that I have allowed to characterize the many. I feel torn, honestly. It's not wrong. Science is right! I think sometimes the fact of the matter is science has outpaced religion in terms of growth and adaptation. Are we Catholics on Vatican III? I don't know what Vatican II is really... And anyway, I think we're stuck with a really slow process when it comes to religion, and we risk becoming ill informed without proper intervention. So it's not without its faults.

But because I think it's important to share faith as part of the whole collective identity that I was referring to, it can be important to actually belong to both science & religion (or faith or worship or spirituality... it has different names, and doesn't have to be Catholicism). The ownership and pride that goes with it are integral to becoming one with yourself, and your vision, and actualization. That's what I think.

I just wanted to rant about Mythos there... LOL

 

...

 

Regarding the 144,000 being saved - I have been under the impression for decades that this was the number that would be able to "be saved" during the tribulation. Like I figured they will all be Jews - 12,000 from each tribe.

But I'm not real hung up on this being fact. That is what I was taught, and when I briefly googled it, it seems that this question - WHO are these 144,000 and WHEN do they get saved - is a question even scholars can't agree on.