Christianity: "Over and Done"

Ikdenk's post #8 from the Jesus Tomb documentary thread:

IMO, Genesis-based creation science is the wet dream, an orchestrated attempt to stay relevant and on top of the hill by a faith that has been historically notable for its routine and often forcible propagation of core doctrines that were irreversibly in-place circa 12th century. A thousand-long list of persons with Ph.D after their names, along with their breakaway opinions regarding creationism, may add some credibility for the already-suggestible, but doesn't prove anything. To an unindoctrinated person, or to a person who has reclaimed the ability to think critically, the Biblical stories of Creation, the Fall of Man, and the Great Flood can easily be seen as either the attempt of a prescientific culture to explain the unexplainable, or as consciously-symbolic accounts of underlying universal truths.

Regarding evolution: A century-plus old, million-long list of Ph.D's as proponents, along with all of their research, observation, and experimentation doesn't prove basic evolutionary theory...big-bang to primodial-soup to DNA-strands to life-as-we-know-it...evolution is a fricking theory, always has been, always will be.

To the objective mind, both creation science and "classic" evolutionism have gaps in their lines of reasoning, and these gaps can only be bridged by faith.

Regarding Biblical prophecy, I'll refer to it as Campbell's scenario, since we all know him and he's the main proponent of this type of thinking here.

Campbell's scenario may make complete sense to him and numerous other prophecy buffs, but it doesn't stand as sound reasoning.

Basically, what Campbell's scenario claims is that the presence in the Bible of arguably accurate prophetic material conclusively proves that the whole Bible is 100% correct, and that all events that are foretold along the lines of this analysis will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. Campbell also claims to have been spoken directly to by God.

Campbell does know his Bible well. Also, every person of spiritual faith, Christian or non-Christian, can legitimately make the claim that God has spoken to them in some fashion...personally, through external signs, symbols, events, or through scripture, and not be fairly adjuged "insane". It's something that comes with the territory of the spiritual and transcendental. We can't call Campbell out on that, other than to say that his personal revelations can't be subjected to independent evaluation...but that's true for any religious person.

The problem is that Campbell is claiming A, 100% Biblical and prophetic accuracy, equals B, the sum of the supporting factors for A. However B, if expressed mathematically, could be B = (c+d) + (e-y) x (z-k), where c, d, e, and y are unknown or assumed values, and z and k known. I've read his personal webpage, as well as other prophetic works, and they follow the same pattern: A is an absolute, but the other side of the equation contains some observable values as well as many assumed or rationalized values and values obtained through personal revelation, and therefore untestable by others.

Campbell's scenario is certainly not a belief shared by all or even most Christians, even among the most conservative...we all can agree on that.

Let's consider a positive outcome, though there indeed may be some very major and unpleasant events in the process of getting there:

In 100 years, oil has been 90% replaced by renewable energy sources, squabbles with the Muslim world are minor, earth's population has stabilized, and the presently-burgeoning environmental movement has the force of most of the world's law behind it. Near-solar-system colonization has begun to emerge as a large-scale reality. The rapture and second coming haven't happened as scheduled, and the creation vs. evolution debate eventually peters out because people are just plain tired of it or an educational compromise gets universally agreed upon. The religious landscape changes, with Christianity, i.e., the variegated world church of Jesus Christ, remaining as a major presence but sharing the stage with Islam and faiths based on eastern spirituality that have spread worldwide and become soundly entrenched in western countries.

It's very obvious by this time that Campbell's scenario is not coming to pass, and most Christians now consider the Bible to be a guide to spiritual life rather than a 100%-accurate book of history and prophecy.

With all that in mind, does Christianity become effectively "over and done", does it remain the same, or does it liberalize and intermix with other faiths and evolve (I know, poor word choice ) ?

Opinions?

 

Christianity, as I see it, is a relationship with god via christ; it is not so much a religion. Therefore, I don't feel it will ever really be "over and done". That being said, I don't go to church...I've tried, off and on, but it never sticks with me because it's such a personal reality I don't really feel I could possibly share it with anyone.


But anyhow, another benefit I personally get from not going to church is that I don't have to deal with any "historical injustices" or "official statements" which I may or may not agree with. (I'm not against anyone going to church, these are just my reasons). When people talk about the historical church, their usually referring to Catholicism, and while I have nothing against catholics themselves, I could write an encyclopedia on issues I have with the Catholic church, both present and past.

I find it humorus when people try and bring logic and mathematical equations and such into the religious debate: RELIGION IS NOT LOGICAL, AND THAT'S OKAY!!

I'll discuss my beliefs about god, but I don't give myself ulcers worrying about how I can make god logical. To me, trying to fit god into the limited box of logic is doing God and everyone of faith a huge disservice. And if you don't believe in god or religion, I wouldn't waste my time on logic and religion either.

Someone once said, "No one feels passionate about the Earth being round." That's because if god were ever shown to be undoubtedly true, logical, and reasonable, we might as well worship stoplights.

-Kate

 

Kate: very nice thoughts. But, I'm afraid you're kind of a minority of one...most everyone here tends to discuss religion from an analytical POV.

 

It should be over and done. The ressurection was a lie.

 

If the ressurection had been a lie, the Christian faith would of been over a long time ago. I personally know Jesus Christ and I can tell you He is alive and I don't care what a couple Jewish movie makers try to tell you. I have seen to much of His power in my life to ignore that truth.

 

Matthew 24 End of The "AGE"(AION) not WORLD

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be HATED of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the LOVE of many shall WAX COLD.

 

Spook - to pick up on your original post -


I myself spent a number of years entertaining the idea that a modernized, liberal, non-literal form of christianity might be ok, even something useful for the future.

In pursuit of this general idea, I read a great deal of christian mystical literature, and spoke with others who are on various kinds of christian paths - mainly catholics and anglicans.
However, in recent times, I have come to adopt a different view. In effect, I don't think that such a 'new' christianity is at all a realistic possibility.

The reasons for this mainly hinge upon the doctrine of Jesus' death as a sacrifice to propitiate the anger of god, and the idea of the physical resurrection.
Both these notions are simply nonsensical IMO. Without going into all the reasons, I don't believe that god suffers from human weakneses like anger etc, and I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. Therefore in my view, a sacrifice would have absolutely no meaning.

As for thr resurrection, it is about the most insane scheme for immortality I've ever encountered.
And as any aborigine will tell you, when a thing is dead, it is dead.
So if we discount something like alien intervention healing the body of Jesus by some super-technology not yet known to us, I think it is a fable and nothing more. An invention meant to tie in with the whole thing of bloody sacrifices.

I don't think that it is necessary to believe in any given form of religion - it is more a mattter of personal growth and that involves exercising choice and judgement. Other paths, such as Hinduism, have figures such as Ram and Krishna, who are 'theoretically' the same thing as Christ, but without the bloodshed etc.

Even the most sensible of esoteric christians who are still seeing it in spiritual terms, are tied to these doctrines, which I feel have absolutely no relevance for the modern person.
Others, like some anglicans, seemingly reject most of the alleged spiritual content of christianity, and want ot see it all in purely moralistic and humanist terms. God they say, is a humanist. It's meant to regulate our behavour here on earth, and the rest they are extrememly woolly about.

I think also that christian doctrines have been changed and altered over the ages to such an extent that the original teaching, whatever that was, is now completely lost to us, and I think it very unlikely that it will ever be recovered or re-constructed.

Generally, my belief is that a new approach to spirituality is needed. Something more open and honest where we can look at the spiritual teachers of the past from all cultures and see what they had to say that was useful, whilst rejecting that which is not useful. In all religions, there are additions I think, made by man, often centuries after the passing of the founder, and they have often become too fixed in their traditions and dogmas. More 'glastnost' is needed, followed by 'peristroika'.

On the basis of the bible though, I can't see a 'new-age' christianity as the solution - It is just based on a conceptual basis which is far too narrow and restrictive to allow for real growth or positive change.

 

Ok, that's fine. I'm not arguing with you.

And actually, skip, I used to be a buddhist. I went from Catholic to agnostic to Buddhist, back to agnostic, and am now a "closeted christian" (ie, I'm a christian but don't like the self-righteous/fanatical stereotype that comes with the term in this country, so I tend to avoid the issue with people.) I'm well aware of the "jesus went to india" thing, and I accept it could be a possibility, but really, with how I view god now, even if that were somehow proven true I don't see how it would change anything for me personally.

 

What? You mean native groups don't believe in life after death? What about ancestor worship?

 

If the Ressurection is a lie then all of the prophecies of the Bible should be a lie as well.

Yet the Bible tells us just before Christ returns to this world, the Jews would return to the land of Israel. They would retake Jerusalem. Jerusalems East Gate would remain sealed until God returned and opened it Himself. And Israel will be surrounded by enemies. Jesus tells us that if it were not for His return man would destroy Himself. Shortly after world war II man developed the weapons to destroy the planet. Which only confirms that what Jesus said was true. If these prophecies are true, then I believe the Ressurection is true as well. And as we can see, these prophecies are true.

 

I don't go to church because of my job prevents it, yet everything I know of the Christian faith comes right out of the Bible. And when the Bible is telling you what is going to happen, and you can see it happening before your very eyes and in detail, and still you can ignore that. Then I would say to believe in anything else you would have to be insane. Now either Buddha is a liar, or Christ is. Yet Christ has given us the prophecies that are true. What prophecies has Buddha given us?

 

No thats not what I mean. I mean when you kill a body that body remains dead for good - it doesn't get re-animated. Thats what chritians mean by the resurrection - bodies coming back to life. It is an absurdity.

Quite possible that some spiritual element may survive death.

 

Bill...I thought Ikdenk's use of the phrase "essentially over and done" to apply to Christianity as we know it if certain conditions were met was a good place to start a discussion, and you've touched on some of the reasons.

Like you, I don't buy the doctrine of Original Sin per the Bible, but such a concept does make sense in the big picture...why are we in this world of sin, cruelty, suffering, quarrel, and war, in temporary and fragile bodies that become diseased, old, ugly, and eventually die? There's got to be a reason.

As you see in the first post, I'm referring to different theological concepts by their proponents on this forum and the Hinduism forum:

-The evangelical Christian pre-millennial viewpoint I call Campbell's scenario, fror obvious reasons.

-the Advaita-vedanta viewpoint I can call Bhaskar's scenario, since he plays much the same role in respect to that philosophy on the Hinduism forum as Campbell does here in respect to premillenialism.

Both gentlemen are doctrinal hardliners, who back their claims with a well-researched and no-compromise literalist stance in regard to their respective scriptures.

Neither Campbell's scenario nor Bhaskar's scenario offer satisfactory explanations for the aforementioned predicament of mankind. For the sake of brevity, I won't discuss either scenario at length now.

The only theologocal concept I have found that offers an explanation that meets the highest standard of rationality is that of Dvaita-vedanta, the Vaisnava philosophy initiated by Srila Ramanujacharya and Srila Madhvacharya, brilliantly demonstrated in the life of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and introduced on large scale to the west by Srila Prabhupada, though SP was certainly not its sole proponent in this era.

In the construct of Dvaita-vedanta, the individual jiva souls...ourselves...as well as well as the supreme soul and Godhead...Sri Krishna...were never created...they have existed eternally and will continue to exist eternally, as separate entities yet sharing of the same qualities. The individual jivas are by nature always subordinate to God, yet as individual personalities, possess free will.

With this free will, it is possible for the jiva to make his own choice to leave the eternal spiritual world and association of Sri Krishna in order to enjoy the allurements of the material dimension...in other words, the individual is responsible for his own Original Sin. The tiny and powerless jiva consequently becomes entangled in a state of complete spiritual ignorance. In this state of ignorance, the jiva transmigrates from body to body until, by the mercy of God, awareness of the spiritual dimension again begins to manifest itself and the individual voluntarily turns Godward.

Briefly, the differences:

In Campbell's scenario, the individual has no previous choice of status...he or she is generated by random sexual intercourse as an ignorant, fallen, degraded, and sin-inclined individual, with one sole life to make the "right" spiritual choice or face the ultimate punishment from a God who is very angry at his own creation.

In Bhaskar's scenario, the individual falls from a state of "Godhood"...eternal non-differrentiated identity with Brahman or pure spirit...into a state of complete ignorance and continual transmigration. This fall comes for no satisfactorily-explainable reason, and no supreme God exists to bestow mercy and eventual deliverance from the fallen condition.

Both Bhaskar and Campbell insist that because their respective scriptural references say it is so, it is so.

Regarding the resurrection:

I certainly believe that it happened. A completely liberated soul, what to speak of an avatara or incarnation of God, will automatically possess all mystic powers...siddhis...and power over death is a siddhi.

Depending on where most religious people are coming from in spiritual ideology, Jesus was the only incarnation of God, an incarnation of God, or at least a completely liberated soul and spiritual master of the highest level. In any of these cases, Jesus would be by nature deathless. So, if Jesus physically rose from the dead, he can be seen to have done this to demonstrate that from the spiritual perspective death is illusory.

Reference to this is found in Bhagavad-gita, Chapter 2, verse 13:

"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change."

There's also a story of a great Vaisnava saint, early in the line descending from Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, whose anguish at seeing the countless jivas suffering in in the material world was so great that he personally requested of Sri Krishna that he be allowed to take the complete and universal burden of all their sins or karma upon himself...in light of the Christian version of the purpose of Jesus, sound familiar? Much like the story of Sri Krishna Prem and Tim Leary we discussed in the Hinduism forum, the story details, names, and specific time line escape me at the moment.

Thanks for responding thoughtfully. I didn't mean at all to turn this thread into a platform for preaching Dvaita-vedanta philosophy, especially on the Christianity forum, but looks like I got headed in that direction anyway.

You're right...my speculations regarding the future of Christianity are only that...speculations.

 

Cheers Spook - you've certainly got the measure of both Mr.C and Mr.B.
Only thing I'd say in support of Bhaskar is that at least Advaitins don't pose a serious threat to society and world peace, as I believe the more militant versions of Campbell's c/anity do.

I can see where you're coming from in both cases, and I broadly agree.

As for original sin, or why the world is in the mess it is, why people are as they are, one possible solution is that it is simply that we haven't yet evolved far enough away from being basically an animal spieces driven by animal instincts etc, although with the capacity to think and to come to value judgements.
The base impulses, in many modified forms rule the human heart in many cases. Not reason, and certainly not a spiritual consciousness.

Our impulses are all mentalized and given a kind of rational form - problem is, I don't think the process has proceeded far enough. The pack instinct manifests as stuff like nationlism, cultism and so on - football teams!

Gradually, we have learned the basic facts about the planet we inhabit, about how life works on the biological level. About the scale of the universe we inhabit. The level of our knowledge now is millions of times greater than that of humans at the time the bible was written. Humankind now posseses literally billions of bits of information which didn't exist even in the 19th century. And it is increasing all the time at a high rate.

Along with this, a kind of life that would have been un-imaginable a few centuries ago is now a realistic possibility for everyone. We have the knowledge, we have the recources. What we seem to lack is a collective will to create better world now.
But it's coming. More people are becoming disillusioned with the old failed solutions, old time religion included.
More people are becoming aware of the issues on a global scale - perhaps more are also experiencing some form of inner spiritual awakening too.

But that hasn't prevented us from continuing to engage in destructive wars, persecutions and so on, or from fighting over belief systems which really have nothing to say to the modern person, and are incapable of addressing the real issues.

My view is that religious 'belief' is not that important. What is needed is a personal connection to the spirit and to higher levels of being. Some teachings of some religions may be useful - but they are no more then tools in the end. It is precisely the fixation on religious dogmas which causes a lot of the strife in the world, and it is all based on values which are totally hypocritical and in some cases, insane.

Take our pal Identikit - An even more outrageous fanatic than Mr. C, who says that c/anity isn't about bringing world peace. I'd like to place him as a fly on the wall in Iraq where he can see up close a child scream because it's arms have been blown off and it's mother killed.
If there is no agenda in c/anity to at least instill a sense of humanism and a desire for world peace, it is worse than useless - it becomes an active evil.

I agree that the Vaishnava philosphers were interesting, but once agin, there are limitations.
The most forward looking of Indian philosphers I have encountered was Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. He believed that life on earth is steadily advancing through an evolutionary process towards an ever highr degree of consciousness.
Human beings in this current configuration are only a step on the way towards that end, which he sees as a cosmic purpose. Things like religion, philosophy, art etc are all meant to help us evolve. However, they are only useful for a time.
None of them, he says, can actually solve the problems humankind faces today. A new and higher form of consciousness would be the only answer.

No doubt c/anity played some historical role in the re-civilizing of europe after the dark ages. It served as a basis for moral values of a basic type. It had it's place, but really, I think it should be assigned the status of an historical curiosity, and no more than that.