Worldview: Christianity
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Retired on 31 December 2007
Table of Contents
Introduction
Missionaries
Fundamentalists
Western Culture Wars
American Politics
Da Vinci Code
Harpur Saves Christianity!
Pagan Christ
Gospel of Thomas
Trilemma of C.S. Lewis
Does the Church Need God?
Introduction
February 2006: I was raised a Catholic, but I long ago became interested in Vedanta and Buddhism and consider them closer approximations to the elusive 'truth'. I bear no ill will towards Christianity, and I accept that it has often been a force for good, e.g. through its emphasis on conscience, charity, forgiveness and the worth of the individual (which may have been instrumental in the rise of modern liberal democracy).
By comparison, Islam also emphasizes charity, but the individual is subordinated to the Koran, to Sharia and to the Muslim community. This goes a long way towards explaining why Muslim nations have had so much trouble integrating into the modern, rational, secular world.
Christianity does share with Islam a horrendous tradition of intolerance, and for the same reason: the unique prophet paradigm. Many Christians think that events such as the Spanish Inquisition, in which torture was used to extract 'confessions', were unfortunate and isolated, but history shows that violence and oppression in the name of the true faith was an enduring theme, from the forced conversion of 'pagans' during Roman and Medieval times, to the inquisitions of early modern times, to the often violent imposition of Christianity on conquered people during colonial times. Throughout all ages, Jews have been viciously persecuted, as well as mystics and others who strayed too far from Church dogma.
However, Christian nations today have evolved into secular democracies, often Christian in name only, and the remnants of Christian bigotry are far less threatening than their counterparts in the Muslim world, even if the hyperventilation of some far-left elements would have us believe otherwise. (Or ... at least ... I hope so!).
By contrast, Allah seems more like a divine tyrant, whose edicts are simply to be followed as the commands of a ruler, without any appeal to some universal principle of good, such as Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Islam takes a legalistic approach towards morality, much like the Old Testament, though without the daring protestations of a Job. (Indeed, his lamentations may be considered an early expression of the individualism of true conscience and morality, as opposed to mere acquiescence based on fear.)
Legalism and fear stunt spiritual growth, which cannot proceed without a maturing of the human being from a social animal blindly following rules to a sensitive individual, conscious of his freedom and worth and acknowledging the same in others. This elevated yet still somewhat egoistic stage is not the final stage of absorption in the Divine, but it is a necessary stage, as the consciousness of a slave is dull and dismal and scarcely receptive to spiritual transcendence. At least, that is my somewhat Hegelian 'gut feeling', for what it is worth.
It seems folly to me to take on both Muslims and Christians in the war of ideas; the latter are sufficiently numerous, powerful, rational and moderate that it makes no sense to antagonize them unnecessarily. Rather, one must constantly and quietly work to repair the damage to secular values which regularly occurs in a devoutly Christian and not very cultured nation like America, without adopting the insulting and ultimately self-defeating stand often displayed by far-left groups.
NOTE: Since I may not get to Judaism, let me state here that I realize that certain passages of the Old Testament are gruesome, but the Jews have moved so far beyond that, for the most part, that it is no longer relevant. Even more important is that the fanaticism of Deuteronomy was never generalized to encompass the world, as was the case with Islam. It is interesting to speculate whether Mohammed drew his inspiration from such precedents. That would be ironic indeed. (My Hindu correspondent SRK has something to say about this.)
Notwithstanding these dark episodes, I feel that Christianity is a mixed bag, far more than is Islam. There has always been a deep spiritual side to Christianity, with an emphasis on experiencing Christ within, which has no parallel in the mainstream Muslim tradition. (Sufism hardly qualifies as mainstream.) Furthermore, in Christianity there has always been an emphasis on conscience and on personal responsibility before God. Thus Jesus taught that the mere thought of adultery is as bad as the actual act, thereby emphasizing the role of feeling, intention, love and conscience. This leads to an internalization of spirituality, which, in my opinion, is a necessary step towards true enlightenment.
As far as I know, the Rabbinical tradition has moved far beyond mere legalism, but I need to study this in detail. Also, let me add that the Christian emphasis on sin can be morbid and lead to mental problems. It is wiser to stress ignorance, as do the Buddhists.
Therefore, after much reflection, I must disagree with those skeptics (and also some Hindus like Sita Ram Goel) who think that Christianity is merely 'Islam lite', that is, a dogmatic, intolerant, aggressive, and anti-rational religion that should be rendered obsolete as soon as possible. These traits no doubt lie buried underneath the surface and can erupt under certain circumstances, but Christians in the West have proven their ability to abide by the secular democracy which they invented.
Hindus present a special case. Many of them are quite irate to see missionaries in India convert their poor and uneducated using 'fraud and deception'. They should simply pass laws targeted against such practices, rather than becoming bitter against Christians in general, as they sometimes do.
Despite the positive side to Christianity, I doubt that many rational and inquisitive people today can believe literally in the key pillars of Christian dogma, such as the physical resurrection of Jesus. In the modern age, it is simply a losing battle to believe in concrete facts that are incompatible with science. Only ignorant people still attempt this, and they are sometimes emboldened by the political numbers of their equally ignorant peers. Fortunately, most Americans are sufficiently educated that they appreciate science and take their religion with a grain of salt. The shrill minority of fundamentalists only seems to have inordinate power when the Republicans pander for their votes in close elections. (Or ... at least ... I hope so!).
There is much evidence that Christianity is based on pagan myths prevalent in the Greco-Roman world of the time of Christ. (See also here.) For example, many 'dying and rising Gods' had been worshipped long before Jesus was born. I cannot believe this is a coincidence; rather, it expresses some deep psychological current in humanity, or in a portion of humanity. Evidently, some feeling of 'salvation' provides spiritual relief to those who worship and identify with a divine savior. This does not mean that such a belief is 'false', only that the power of myth should be properly understood. Certain myths are an expression of an inner spiritual transformation in a conceptual framework that ordinary people can understand and absorb. It is harmless enough if they take their myths literally, provided they do not try to shove them down the throats of others. Hence, the importance of separating church and state.
Note that rejecting the literal truth of myths does not require one to be an agnostic or atheist. The inner spiritual transformation provided by myths can be quite real and is compatible with an abstract and philosophical understanding of the divine (which Western intellectuals have sadly abandoned). Those Christians who feel intense love for Jesus should realize that the love itself is real in the eyes of the divine. Only some harmful conceptual baggage need be discarded, such as the pernicious idea that Jesus is the exclusive source of enlightenment or salvation.
UPDATE (1 Jan 07): A summary of my spiritual beliefs can be found here.
NOTE (10 Jun 07): I just noticed that the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website, a favorite of mine, is now in a rather messy state. This is unfortunate, as it was full of useful and credible information, when I last studied it two or three years ago. I was able to find many persuasive quotes from the ancients regarding the pagan origins of Christianity. Moreover, the sources for the site were scholarly and credible, consisting largely of books published by the presses of major universities — not that all such books are reliable! No doubt, that information is still there, but you must now dig deeper, as the owner of the site 'renovates'. (See my new article on the Pagan Christ.)
Greg Kane: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth [see note above]
Brian Flemming: The God Who Wasn't There
Koenraad Elst: Psychology of Prophetism
Jimmy Williams: A (Not So) Brief Defense of Christianity
Bertrand Russell: Why I Am Not a Christian
Geza Vermes: Beneath the pious fiction, what is the real Jesus?
Christian Thinktank: Was Jesus Christ just a copycat savior myth?
Back to Christianity Menu
Missionaries
Introduction (March 06): There is a deplorable tendency for Christian missionaries to be insulting towards Hindus in a way they would not dare to be towards Muslims. (Unlike Muslims, who explode at the slightest provocation, Hindus typically remain calm or at least nonviolent. Perhaps there is something to be said for an occasional temper tantrum.) My Hindu correspondent SRK has presented some clear evidence, from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and from the Catholic Church. From the SBC, he points out this pamphlet on Divali (the Hindu Festival of Lights celebrating the return of Rama from exile), which starts out with the offensive words:
How rude of these ignorant people to insult an ancient religion that has remained free of the fanatical bloodshed so characteristic of Christianity and Islam! A venerable religion that boasts a refined and unsurpassed spiritual metaphysics, backed by entire constellations of the most inspired mystics, compared to the mere sprinkling of mystics in other religions! If one wishes to speak of deities 'created by the imagination of men and women', then why not begin with Christ, who clearly emulates Greco-Roman myths? At least the Hindus take their myths with a grain of salt, whereas Christians have been deadly serious about theirs. (And I do mean deadly.) Myths are harmless symbolic pointers in themselves; what matters is what we do with them. We can either use them as tools to pursue quietly our own spiritual progress, or we can use them as weapons of ideological aggression, as do these missionaries. Salvation has nothing to do with believing in this or that myth; it is achieved only by purifying the spirit, so that our mind may move beyond myths into the clear and blissful light of Illuminated Consciousness, in which the Divine is none other than the radiance of that very Consciousness. What other notion of Divine has any real meaning or value, except as an object of theological squabbles? Finally, Hindus would not use the loaded words 'trapped in a vicious cycle' of reincarnation. The whole idea behind karma is simply that, until we become illuminated by wisdom into our true divine nature, then we remain slaves to our ignorant animal nature. This penetrating psychological insight is the basis of all spiritual progress. It is a universal truth that transcends any particular religion.
I am particularly saddened to learn that Bill Clinton is a member of the SBC denomination. I try to argue to my Hindu friends that Christians are divided into open-minded liberals and closed-minded conservatives like any other group. (Only in spiritual matters do I consider the word 'liberal' to have an entirely positive connotation; in politics it may sometimes be better to be a bit 'conservative' if that is what it takes to maintain the minimum of discipline and decency for a viable society.) Now Bill Clinton should certainly be liberal in this spiritual sense, with his constant praise of tolerance and diversity. It is rather sad that the denomination he supposedly chose should publish this ignorant garbage.
But it's not just certain Protestants; it's also the Catholics, in principle all of them, according the papal theory. SRK provides some choice documents: Ad Gentes, Ecclesia in Asia, and Catholicism and Other Religions, where the following excerpt is taken from the last of them:
Once again the same ignorant appraisal of Hinduism and the same arrogant certitude of a monopoly over the truth. (Is there anybody as sure of himself as an ignoramus?) As for the horrors of 'pantheism', I can assure you that true darkness consists in not having a direct experience of the omnipresence of the Divine. Who are these fools to speak of 'darkness'? On a comical note, one may observe that Hindus are often only too willing to play along with naive statements such as I don't think Jesus himself would have said not to respect other religions. Unfortunately, though Jesus did say many edifying things, these did not include an appreciation of other swamis and spiritual paths.
Back to Missionaries
Using Misery to Spread the Faith (3 Aug 06): The eminent Hindu 'nationalist' scholar Sita Ram Goel wrote a book called Vindicated by Time, subtitled The Niyogi Committee Report on Christian Missionary Activities. In the chapter called Rift of the Lute, we read the following (near the end):
Arun Shourie is a very sharp economist, scholar and defender of Hinduism, and a former official of the Indian government. He wrote a book called Missionaries in India, which fully documents the various kinds of coercion used to gain converts. I quite agree that any religious conversion should be a slow and thoughtful process intiated by oneself. Even if disease doesn't quite count as violence, it is surely crass and grossly contrary to any true understanding of spirituality to rejoice at people 'converting' due to desperation born of illness. If conversion was a precondition of medical treatment, then this borders on actual violence.
Back to Missionaries
Fundamentalists
Introduction (April 06): The intelligent design debate, a DVD by former fundamentalist Brian Flemming called The God Who Wasn't There, SRK's comments, and other sources have all prompted me to think anew about conservative Christians in America. The most worrisome are the fundamentalists, who seek to establish a godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society. Until recently, I had thought them somewhat of an antiquated anomaly, with a certain influence over the GOP, but in no way to be compared to the danger posed by Islam. Indeed, any equation of conservative Christianity to militant Islam seems like a gross and dangerous exaggeration, that only the irresponsible Left would indulge in. After all, American Christians overwhelmingly obey the law, so don't they have a right to express their opinions?
What got me thinking was a quote from the DVD that, according to Gallup,
That is an awfully large number for the country that put a man on the moon! Maybe I'd better examine this, instead of remaining complacent in my blue-state bubble. I'll get back to this as soon as I can. So much to do...
OK, I'm back, and I watched the DVD in full, which I recommend, even though it is a bit heavy-handed regarding contemporary Christians. It starts out with the usual troublesome gap in the historical evidence for Jesus, which, combined with the clear analogies between the Christian story and many ancient myths, strongly suggests a considerable level of human invention (not necessarily a bad thing). Another interesting point is that the recent Mel Gibson movie The Passion of Christ, a blockbuster among conservative Christians, has only 16 minutes out of 2 hours that don't show some blood, and much of it is very bloody indeed. Now one could argue that this dramatizes Jesus' sacrifice, but such an obsession with gore does seem unhealthy to me. Equally unhealthy is the preaching of eternal damnation for not believing in Christ. I used to think that no modern Christian took this too seriously, but Flemming, who is obviously intelligent, was taught to believe it as a child, and he did. Finally, the DVD shows some extreme preachers saying such things as God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew or Homosexuals should be executed. It does also show some very nice fundamentalist Christians who merely come off as naive.
What is one to make of this? There are several questions to ask. What are the different grades of fundamentalism and how many Americans belong to each? A Christian may believe in the virgin birth and so forth but have no desire to discriminate against Jews or homosexuals. At most, he might annoy you by knocking on your door and trying to convert you. Then there is the implication that any kind of religious dogmatism retards one's mental faculties and perhaps opens a deeper and more primitive layer of the psyche, one that may, for example, be obsessed with blood sacrifices. Even if one does not become more 'primitive', the suppression of critical intelligence is surely dangerous for a democracy, which can only survive if the public is informed and skeptical. But does every metaphysical or supernatural belief, no matter how benign, qualify as a suppression of critical faculties?
Now atheists like Richard Dawkins go too far in tying the religious beliefs of President Bush to what he considers an unjust war in Iraq. On the DVD, he says that
and in this article he says that
I take a somewhat more nuanced view. Bush may have conservative religious beliefs, but he has also gone out of his way to declare that Islam is a religion of peace, which is in fact not correct and could be viewed as 'liberal' brainwashing by the John Esposito / Karen Armstrong crowd. Furthermore, as I have argued, Bush had good reason to think that Saddam had WMD, even if he 'sexed up' the evidence. (Dawkins has a point that WMD were not an issue in the 2000 election. And he does recommend Ibn Warraq!) To crudely compare Bush to a fanatical crusader shows that a rationalistic atheist like Dawkins may not be as intelligent as he thinks he is. And to posit a moral parity between Bush and Osama is grossly irresponsible yet all too characteristic of leftist thinking. His claim that the United States and the Islamic world are converging in terms of their 'fundamentalism' mindlessly ignores the democratic institutions of the former, not to mention the much larger proportion of moderates and liberals in the population. Nevertheless, I will grant that too much moral fervor, a frequent by-product of religiosity, can cloud one's judgment, and this seems to have happened with Bush.
One area where Christian fundamentalism has had an unfortunate effect on public policy is with stem-cell research. Although I favor a woman's right to choose, I acknowledge that at some point in the pregnancy, the foetus is essentially a life. The question is at what point. Surely that point is long after conception. To think otherwise seems like a gross medieval superstition to me. What meaningful 'human life' is contained in a mere cluster of cells? Don't these pious ignoramuses know anything about biology? Stem cell research offers much promise with many serious diseases, and even many Republicans were dismayed when President Bush vetoed public funds for stem-cell research. This was quite a national embarrassment and an indication that we ignore the power of the superstitious at our own peril. (This article by Jacob Heilbrunn affirms the wisdom of Karl Rove, that a GOP without the credulous believers would be condemned to failure at the polls. Hmmm. Not very reassuring.)
9 May 06: Here is an example of how Christian fundamentalism arises in different lands, in this case Greece, the ancient home of philosophers and pagans. For 2000 years, ever since the conquest of Christianity, the ancient Greek Gods - Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Athena and co - have been banned from Greece. Only recently has an Athens court ordered this ban lifted.
About 98% of Greeks are Orthodox Christian, and all other religions except Judaism and Islam had been banned.
Yet the pagans say as many as 2,000 Greeks have signed up to their movement. Mr Tsantilas, 42, a computer scientist who came to paganism after toying with Buddhism, Taoism and Islam, said worshippers perceived the ancient gods as the "personification of the divine".
But Greece's powerful Orthodox Church takes a less charitable view, accusing the worshippers of idolatry and "poisonous New Age practices".
Father Eustathios Kollas, who presides over the community of Greek priests, said: "They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past." Notice the vitriolic feeling of the priests. Why do they have to feel this way? Ancient pagans never felt that way about each other's gods. Rather, they tended to look for similarities. For example, the Romans identified Jupiter with Zeus, and Julius Caesar identified the Gaul god Toutatis with Jupiter. Also, it's rather ironic that the ancient pagan Gods were considered more of a threat than Islam, after losing the entire Byzantine empire! Such is the power of a mere concept, in this case 'monotheism'. Let us remember, though, that the gods of polytheism can be interpreted as different 'personifications of the divine', as mentioned above. But even if they aren't, so what?
9 May 06: My Hindu correspondent SRK has further erudite comments on Greek gods and philosophers.
9 May 06: How long until these idols are smashed?
12 May 06: Let us not, however, be one-dimensional in thinking about religious fundamentalism. Here is an interesting blog article called Are Evangelicals Conservatives? According to this author, conservatives, by definition, are reluctant to change institutions, whereas evangelicals rely on an inner illumination which oftens challenges orthodoxy, both in terms of dogma and in terms of social politics. In America, evangelicals were often behind many social reform movements, from Abolitionism to Civil Rights to the ending of child labor. My discussion so far has been slanted towards the intolerant aspect of Christianity, but we should not forget that it has often promoted a sense of ethics, egalitarianism and social responsibility. The same could be said of Islam. We ignore the 'good' side of these religions at our peril, as this side accounts in no small measure for their popularity among ordinary (i.e. non-intellectual) people. At the same time, it must be understood that ethics and social responsibility can be secularized and detached from any religious tradition. Indeed, they must be in order to have a modern 'liberal democracy'. Thus, the virtues of a religion do not atone for the vices.
23 Jun 06: According to the LA Times, as much as 40% of the American public believes that the Book of Revelation is unfolding before our eyes. Terrible wars and calamities will precede the glorious return of Jesus. (Of course it has to be bloody! You get what you pay for.) The Jews and Shias have their own version of the Apocalypse with their own Messiahs. Hey, maybe God is multicultural and all these apocalypses will take place simultaneously. Meanwhile, missionaries associated with these churches are feverishly combing the earth, trying to convert as many souls as possible, until it is too late, forever and ever and ever...
Regarding the blood, SRK says this:
Yes, I quite prefer a spiritual path based on the Indian idea that we are intrinsically divine but somehow clouded by ignorance, rather than one based on the Middle Eastern idea that we are intrinsically sinful. What a pernicious idea! It leads not only to personal misery but also can be abused politically, as in the crusading spirit which seeks to convert or to persecute. Very convenient for those who would build empires! (Koenraad Elst is a talented free-lance historian who is sympathetic to the Hindu plight. He researches many topics related to Hinduism that have been neglected by politically correct academic circles.)
24 Jun 06: I would never stoop to mention Ann Coulter on my high-class site, except that Jason Papas has an interesting article on her repudiation of Darwin as a 'source of satanic secular religion'. This would be trivial except that Coulter is a widely read columnist and author, who is also a trained lawyer, with a JD from the University of Michigan law school and a BA from Cornell. Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm rather shocked that someone with so much education from such prestigious universities fails to comprehend the basics of evolution. I already knew that democracy cannot survive if the bulk of the population is not informed and educated, but now it seems that may not be nearly enough. (By the way, Coulter is also famous for writing that after invading Muslim countries, we should convert them to Christianity.)
15 Feb 07: More news from Greece on reinstating Greek Gods:
Watched by curious onlookers, some 20 worshippers gathered next to the ruins of the temple for a celebration organized by Ellinais, a year-old Athens-based group that is campaigning to revive old religious practices from the era when Greece was a fount of education and philosophy.
The group ignored a ban by the Culture Ministry, which declared the site off limits to any kind of organized activity to protect the monument.
But participants did not try to enter the temple itself, which is closed to everyone, and no officials sought to stop the ceremony. Back to Christianity Menu
Western Culture Wars
Introduction (13 May 06): Commentary has published an article called Europe's Two Culture Wars. The author, George Weigel, is a Roman Catholic theologian and commentator on religion and public life. I agree with his diagnosis of European cultural and political decay: the absurd political correctness, which is restricting free speech while turning a blind eye to the growing danger of Islam, all in the name of a warped interpretation of 'tolerance'; the low native birth rate which, combined with Muslim immigration and the high Muslim birth rate, promises demographic and cultural genocide, and sooner than you think; the nihilistic and anti-rational intellectual cancers of post-modernism and cultural relativism; and sundry PC absurdities such as replacing 'Mother' and 'Father' on birth certificates by 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B'. I'll even admit that so open-minded a child of the Enlightenment as yours truly has trouble with same-sex marriages, if only because I would very much prefer 'normal' parents for myself.
However, where I disagree with the distinguished theologian is when he tries to conflate the Enlightenment with the Judeo-Christian tradition, all in the name of preserving Western civilization. Nonsense! The Enlightenment was a direct reaction to traditional Christianity, which has only moderated in modern times because it was forced to. Furthermore, the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition is to a considerable extent but a lighter version of the Islamic nightmare which now threatens Europe. The Jews and Christians may have embraced the modern values of pluralism, freedom of thought, and separation of church and state, but this is no thanks to anything to be found in either the Old or New Testament, where the dominant themes are the usual Middle Eastern idiocies of intolerance and theocracy. At most, one could argue that the Biblical emphasis on morality and conscience, combined with Greco-Roman rationalism, ultimately led to the Enlightenment. The latter was nonetheless a repudiation of the former. In spirit, the Enlightenment is much closer to the Greco-Roman tradition, and the line that connects these two is the true 'Western civilization'.
As for the expression 'Middle Eastern idiocies', my Hindu correspondent SRK reminds me that this is an injudicious turn of phrase. As he says:
Of course, I agree that it is ultimately a matter of ideology rather than geography. However, Islam now has such a stranglehold over the Middle East, that the region has become synonymous with Islam. And frankly, it does seem a bit too coincidental that not one but three major intolerant religions have emanated from this place. Is it the heat broiling people's brains? India is hot too, but it has the civilizing influence of rivers. Not to mention the refreshing monsoon. Perhaps geography does make a bit of a difference. In the final analysis, though, I agree with SRK that the Middle East had relatively tolerant pagans before the prophetic virus spread, and that this virus can affect anybody. After centuries of Jewish persecution by Christians, these spiritual 'brothers' are getting chummy again, at least over at places like Commentary magazine. The reason for this detente is transparent: the Jews are worried about Israel, and the conservative Christians are worried about losing the cultural wars. So they embrace each other as though nothing had ever happened, and they extol the supposed virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which they dishonestly associate with the rationalism and liberalism of modern Western civilization.
Yet there is one relative virtue I will concede to the Judeo-Christian tradition. It seems that Western man is too immature to sustain the lofty ideals of the civilization he struggled so hard to achieve. The Judeo-Christian mythology may therefore be the next best expedient to prevent a reversion to barbarism. Islam would be much worse, and refined Eastern wisdom seems out of reach of the masses. (Buddhism is even declining in the East.) I agree that postmodernist nonsense and PC appeasement of Islam (and other forms of barbarism) are treason by our intellectuals against the very civilization that sustains them. Furthermore, the hedonism, insanity and nihilism that permeate our popular culture are indeed a grave threat to the social and spiritual order. Individualism is a blessing which must be combined with a sense of responsibility. At this we seem to be failing miserably, and thus we are squandering our priceless inheritance. Perhaps some dim-witted people need stone tablets from the sky in order to learn good behavior. (By the way, conservatives such as the folks at Commentary have contributed to social irresponsibility with their worship of tax breaks for the rich, even during a war, which they started, and which they pay their poorer relatives to fight. What hypocrisy!)
20 May 06: Robert Spencer has an alternative view on the debt of Western secularism to Christianity. His discussion also reveals a worrisome crack within American political life: Is America primarily Christian or secular?
Back to Christianity Menu
Christianity & American Politics
Introduction (May 2006): I do not share the disdain of many intellectuals for religion, though I agree that organized religion can often promote ignorance, prejudice and conformity. I have already adequately criticized Christianity for her past sins: forced conversions, inquisitions, obstruction of thought and knowledge, and so on. I deplore the tendency of Christians to believe that their religion is the only 'true' one, and I wonder if it could survive without this bit of arrogance.
On the other hand, as an American I know many friendly Christians who mean no harm to anyone and who really believe that Christianity is all about love. Even so, I cast a wary eye on the religious right in this country, who often display some 'medieval' tendencies which I consider contrary to the rational spirit of our Constitution. This Constitution defines who we are and what America is about, and it is a child of the European Enlightenment and not of Christianity. (That's right, 'secular humanism' and all that.)
The associated issues, like Intelligent Design in schools and stem cell research, often seem minor, but the implications are potentially critical, especially if I am correct that culture is fundamental to a civilization and way of life. By culture, I mean our basic attitudes and modes of thought, which are like the mental atmosphere in which we live and breathe. Most importantly, we have the crucial choice between informed skepticism, on the one hand, and acquiescence to tradition and authority, on the other. Modern liberal democracy arises from the former, in my opinion, while religion tends towards the latter. Hence, the potential for conflict between the two is always there, even if some forms of religion are benign. The key to taming religion is to keep it a private matter. The Constitution is based on this idea, and Americans had been moving steadily in this direction over the decades, at least until the Republicans started to exploit religion for political gain.
It is true that there has been much foolish exaggeration regarding the imminence of 'theocracy' in this country. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that the overall psychological climate governing our society must remain one of secular rationalism, inculcated in our schools and institutions, or a creeping darkness may set in. The history of religion in politics definitely points in that direction. The reason is not hard to see. Religion is, for most people, based on blind faith, gut emotions and group identity, so that it easily becomes contaminated with prejudice and ignorance. Religion provides an easy feeling of comfort and sanctimonious certitude, while thinking is hard work. Finally, religion, by its very nature, can unleash powerful passions, made all the more potent by the feeling of moral certitude. Hence, the brew of politics and religion can be potent indeed, as we have seen in the European past and in the Middle East today. Our secular democratic accomplishment must not be taken for granted; it is contrary to human nature and weakness.
Can Religion in Politics Be Good? (29 Aug 06): An interesting claim could be made that religion in politics can also produce good, e.g. when Christian-inspired abolitionists worked to eliminate slavery. There may be some truth to this, but the important point is that recognition of the evil of slavery has nothing to do with Christianity per se. On the contrary, it proceeds from a rationalism which realizes that all humans are fundamentally the same and should be treated the same, at least in terms of their basic rights. The historical relationship of Christianity and slavery is complex. The Bible says little about it, and what it does say is often of an approving nature. One can argue that 'Christian love' had something to do with the abolitionist spirit, but this same 'Christian love' was also a driving force behind colonialism and the 'white man's burden'. It is better to stick to general, rationalistic principles, when deciding upon laws and public policies.
Back to Christianity Menu
Da Vinci Code
Introduction (16 May 06): The Da Vinci Code is a book, and now a movie, that claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a daughter, contrary to the teaching of the Church, and that Opus Dei is a shadowy Catholic order that will murder to protect this secret. I have argued that Christianity is probably based on Greco-Roman myths, so I am hardly a pious Christian, yet I have no desire to see this silly movie. I thought its transparent nonsense was innocuous enough, but Pat Buchanan feels the need to compare it to the Protocols of the Elder of Zion and to Holocaust denial! He notes, apparently with approval, that Holocaust denial is now a crime in many European countries. He also argues, again apparently with approval, or at least some sympathy, that Muslims throughout the world rioted over the Mohammed cartoons and extracted apologies from weak-kneed politicians everywhere. He feels that only a vicious modern secular culture out to destroy Christianity would engage in such a double-standard, daring to insult Christianity in a way that it never would to Judaism or Islam. He goes so far as to say:
I enjoy reading Pat, and I appreciate that he was one of the few conservatives with enough conscience to have second thoughts about the futile Iraq war, not to mention America's assumption of an imperial mantle, however benign our motives might be. However, he is wrong on this one. Islam is treated with 'respect', because its tactics of intimidation have been successful. The Holocaust is different, as this concerns modern, verifiable events, where millions were actually murdered, rather than myths and theology. However, I am not in favor of making Holocaust denial a crime. Neither am I in favor of censoring the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, nor Mein Kampf, for that matter. It is best to expose lies and slander through open discussion. (Here is what Robert Spencer has to say.)
As for religious myths, the pious need to grow up and accept that we are now free to criticize them as we please. (I do recommend doing so respectfully, but I am against censoring those who do not.) This is the modern, rational age, and thank God for it! Feeling insulted is a totally childish reaction that, if it became widespread, would soon return us to the Dark Ages, or make us like the present Middle East. I hope nobody in America wants that! (Americans should remember that all our materialistic goodies are a direct product of the rational spirit that gave us science, liberal democracy, and the separation of church and state.)
Besides, as I argued above, there is a more sophisticated interpretation of myths, called symbolic or mystical, which preserves their spiritual value as pointers to the divine. The wiser ancients understood this, but organized religion became stupid and insisted on their factual validity, which is not only doubtful in itself but also has little to do with their spiritual value. For example, as a philosopher, I cannot accept that the resurrection of the flesh of Jesus, a rather materialistic notion, would make any difference to my state of consciousness, even if it did occur. With the symbolic interpretation, on the other hand, one no longer needs to feel defensive about the 'truth' of myths. The symbolic interpretation allows different faiths to coexist in harmony, thus removing the divisive politics from religion. Furthermore, one can benefit spiritually from being devoted to the divine in the form of Jesus, or Krishna, or any other emotionally potent representation, in a way that does not defy rationality. The prophetic approach to religion makes this difficult, with its insistence on revelation and its tendency to monopolize the truth.
20 May 06: This article shows why theology puts Christians out on a limb they can scarecely climb down from. Notice that this embittered Christian conservative feels that denying Christ is part of the very meaning of 'secular' as understood today. Not true. Secular simply means separation of church and state and allied political notions. However, along with secularism goes a rationalistic outlook which will tend to find traditional Christianity rather untenable.
Back to Christianity Menu
Tom Harpur Saves Christianity!
Introduction (10 Jun 07): This article is a bit premature, since I am about to discuss a book that I only just started reading. It is Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ, which develops a theme that has been popular on the internet, namely, that Christianity has its origin in pagan 'myths', which were then distorted into purported historical facts, perhaps for reasons having to do with Church politics. I referred to this already, when I mentioned the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website, which is interesting, extensive and persuasive. There are simply too many parallels between Christian dogma and numerous earlier myths; besides, several early Church fathers admit as much.
What Harpur does is to cast this in a positive light, as a way for modern, troubled, skeptical Christians to salvage their faith and restore its inner 'mythical' meaning as a path to 'salvation'. First, one must understand the true meaning of myth. A myth is not just a 'story', but rather a symbolic representation of an inner transformation, which does lead one closer to a very real 'God', or at least to a divine state. This God is the ultimate foundation of the universe, if not a 'creator God' in the strict sense of the word (i.e. a God who creates a world distinct from itself at a certain moment in time). The 'pagan' God of enlightened Platonic or Hindu thought is more abstract, the foundation of Being and Reality, who is apprehended in one's innermost consciousness through mystical bliss. This is also the God of Christian mystics. The ancient myths were simply stories to express such a subtle notion of God in language that ordinary people could understand and incorporate into their rituals.
A number of online authors have broached this topic, and some websites are quite good, others not so good. Hence, Harpur draws my attention, due to his academic credentials. As stated on his website, he has extensively studied Christian theology and the classics, culminating in a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford. I hate to sound snobbish, but this is important, because some enthusiastic 'scholars' have propagated notions and facts that were not well established in the documentation. I will assume that when Harpur quotes some classic or ancient source, he was careful about verification. If not, I will come back here and tell you so, provided that I find out.
(NOTE: On the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website, there is page where the owner Greg Kane indicates that he does not rely on the controversial web-scholar Acharya S. Indeed. most of his sources are from major university presses, which is reassuring. That said, Acharya S may not be so bad. The sober and well-respected Earl Doherty has a sympathetic review. I don't know.)
I look forward to reading Harpur's book. When I'm finished, I may provide a review. I hope that Harpur is able to reach many thoughtful Christians with the notion that 'pagan' is not necessarily 'bad'. Indeed, it is the true meaning of Christianity, which was subverted for political ends. (That is, the Church most likely turned the myths into unique historical 'facts', so that it could claim a monopoly over spiritual and even political life. This proved most convenient when it took on the mantle of the old Roman Empire, which it jealously and violently guarded, until the Reformation dealt it an irreversible blow. Thank God for that!)
NOTE (10 Jun 07): I just noticed that the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website, a favorite of mine, is now in a rather messy state. This is unfortunate, as it was full of useful and credible information, when I last studied it two or three years ago. I was able to find many persuasive quotes from the ancients regarding the pagan origins of Christianity. Moreover, the sources for the site were scholarly and credible, consisting largely of books published by the presses of major universities — not that all such books are reliable! No doubt, that information is still there, but you must now dig deeper, as the owner of the site 'renovates'. (See my new article on the Pagan Christ.)
UPDATE (10 Jun 07): Earl Doherty has written a review of Harpur's book. Doherty is one of the most sober, intelligent and scholarly critics of orthodox Christianity to be found on the web. Nonetheless, Doherty does not shrink away from some of the problematic aspects of Harpur's sources, while fundamentally agreeing with his thesis that the Christ myth has its origin in pagan sources. This review should help you decide how to evaluate Harpur's work. Doherty, an atheist, does not subscribe to Harpur's mystical reinterpretation of Christ along pagan lines.
UPDATE (10 Jun 07): At first glance, J.P. Holding seems to do a decent job of savaging The Pagan Christ, by consulting some 'Egyptologists' who evidently refute some of Harpur's points. As I said, I have not yet read Harpur's book. However, I am willing to rely on the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website [but see the note above]. When I studied the site some time ago, I was impressed with how vigorously and carefully the owner Greg Kane examined the evidence and addressed well-known critics. One should remember that some scholars of the ancient world have a pro-Christian agenda, so that one should take my enthusiasm for credentialed scholars with a grain of salt. Bitter controversies are not uncommon in the hallowed halls of academe. At any rate, J.P. Holding has also attacked the POCM website, and here is how Kane responded. It appears that Holding has backed off considerably.
Note that a few honest errors do not invalidate an entire thesis, especially when those errors were committed by otherwise reliable sources. Nobody is perfect. It is the weight of the testimony which must be considered. Moreover, Holding's vitriolic tone casts considerable doubt on his objectivity. His rebuttal is long and tedious, and I suppose I should study it in detail some day. Suffice it to say that the POCM website gives me high confidence that Harpur's basic thesis is most likely correct, even if his scholarship is a bit sloppy. It is particularly telling that some Church Fathers also knew of the pagan similarities and felt the need to attribute them to the devil. Besides, I may be giving too much benefit of the doubt to Holding. Harpur's credentials in theology and classics (Rhodes Scholar and Professor at the University of Toronto) do look rather better than Holding's (Masters' Degree in Library Science). (Note: The intelligent and scholarly online atheist Earl Doherty does a good job of demolishing Holding here.)
To conclude, the real reason that I am a priori sympathetic to Harpur is that there is an overwhelming lack of evidence that the Gospels can be taken seriously, regardless of the pagan connections, and Harpur provides a reasonable alternative for mystically or philosophically inclined Christians who are troubled by the pangs of doubt. Whatever the validity of Holding's particular nitpicks, I am quite sure that his overall judgment leaves much to be desired, if he is a proponent for a literal interpretation of the Gospels, as I take him to be (due to his membership in a Southern Baptist Church). Harpur may have a few facts wrong, but his overall vision is that of a spiritually-oriented philosopher, who cannot accept a literal interpretation of Christian scripture, yet who wishes to avoid the treacherous shoals of modern materialism. And nobody will convince me that it is simply irrational to believe is some kind of a philosophical deity, though I grant that such a deity cannot be proved according to the rules of a narrow empiricism.
UPDATE (10 Jun 07): Here is how one educated Christian lady, who was losing her faith, responded to Harpur's book, in an article reprinted in his website. Note that she evolved from Christian fundamentalist to the kind of 'liberal' Christian for whom religion is little more than ethics and a social club. She found little comfort in either.
Allegorical Christianity is teaching me that in living dependent upon outside sources—to the neglect of my own reality and sense of self—I am living as if I were already dead. It is only through realizing that the Christ spirit lives within me that I truly resurrect into LIFE. Not life in some far off, after-death future—but life here and now. By realizing that I possess that same spirit of God, that same divine spark of life as Jesus recognized in himself, I learn to live consciously—ALIVE—and therefore responsibly self-aware in this life. UPDATE (10 Jun 07): Hank Marvin, famed guitarist of The Shadows, an early 60's British instrumental band, is surely a good guy if there ever was one. Did you know that he recently became a Jehovah's witness, after being a lifelong 'atheist'? See the following video of an interview he gave on British TV.
The connection with Harpur is the following. Marvin states that two of the reasons he converted are that the Bible is full of historicity, with many specific dates and places, and that God has a specific name, Jahweh. This shows that the appeal of Christianity's alleged historicity can be quite persuasive, with many decent people, and that the Church fathers knew what they were doing. Most people simply aren't interested in anything esoteric, such as mysticism, metaphysics or any other abstract approach to God. It just doesn't harmonize with their object-oriented mentality.
Yet God is surely abstract and esoteric! He (or rather it) may or may not exist, but everybody with the slightest philosophical inclination agrees that if it does exist, then it certainly has no form and no name. Nevertheless, Marvin was reassured, precisely because the God of the Bible has a name, which is repeated many times in the Bible. That makes him a real 'person' to Marvin, as it would to many others. Hinduism is wise to take such human limitations into account, with its many names and forms of God. Christianity took the same pedestrian-friendly approach early on, but then tended to poison its spirituality with politics and exclusivism, a habit that endures to this day. Note that politics is also something that appeals to ordinary people at a gut level.
Marvin, you go ahead and be a Jehovah's Witness, if you wish. Just please don't come knocking on my door! And keep on playing that great Stratocaster guitar music. That's how the electric guitar is supposed to sound. Too bad it got spoiled with ear-splitting volume and distortion.
Pagan Christ
Introduction (12 Jun 07): In the Introduction, I referred you to the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth website for evidence that the story of Christ is based on religious myths prevalent in the ancient Mediterranean world and predating Christianity by centuries, or even millennia. Unfortunately, this website is under repair and is now rather confusing to read. So here I will collect some key evidence for the Christ myth claim — evidence that seems sufficiently persuasive to me. This section is not yet complete.
Our first source will be a DVD by Brian Flemming called The God Who Wasn't There. A number of scholars are interviewed, and I will quote from two in particular: Alan Dundes, the late Professor of Folklore at the University of California at Berkeley, and Robert M. Price, Jesus Seminar fellow and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.
Alan Dundes refers to a book by a Lord Raglan called The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama. Raglan discerned a 'hero myth' in the ancient religious and epic literature of the world, for which he developed a 'template' of common characteristics. Jesus fits so well into the template that it would seem obtuse to deny that he is part of the same mentality that gave us the gods and heroes of Egypt, Greece, Sumeria, India and other ancient civilizations. Dundes edited a book called A Study of Folklore, in which he discusses the template and gives scores to various ancient god-heroes, including Jesus. I copied down a few of the 22 items from the template as I watched the DVD:
Price is a professor of theology, a Jesus Seminar fellow, a board member of the Jesus Project, and a fellow of The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. He surely has the credentials to discuss the ancient literature related to the Bible, and one would not expect him to have started out with a bias against Christianity! So I am willing to take his word when he, along with so many other qualified experts, assert the similarities between the Jesus savior myth and many other myths that were popular in the ancient Mediterranean environment. I don't need to research all the scholarly literature myself, though I have taken a look at it. To repeat, the best of it is published by the presses of major universities, not by those presses that publish about astrology and UFOS (though there is some of that too).
Another powerful argument in favor of the pagan origins of the Christ myth is the defensive testimony of some Church fathers. As quoted by Price in the DVD, we have the famous Church father Justin Martyr proclaiming the following:
Indeed, for Christians, their religion has always been something unique and far superior to other religions, a fanatical ideology that must be spread throughout the world. Today, this has been mollified by the claim that missionaries are only trying to spread the 'good news', as though they have a better brand of spiritual detergent.
The 'pagans', on the other hand, from ancient Greeks to Hindus both ancient and modern, have always taken the more sophisticated view that spiritual myths can reappear is slightly altered forms in different cultures, where their transformative value is introspective, having nothing to do with actual and unique historical events. Just think how much trouble could have been avoided if this sophisticated view had prevailed over ignorant, arrogant and immature Christian exclusivism. Hopefully, this latest research on the pagans origins of Christianity will have a chastening effect, at least on some. (Note that to this day, the 'devil did it' remains the official explanation of the Catholic Church for the pagan similarities to Jesus.)
Some Relevant Links
UPDATE (13 Jun 07): Here are some other arguments from The God Who Wasn't There DVD in favor of the pagan origins of the Christ myth:
The DVD finishes with some of the well-known detrimental aspects of Chritianity:
UPDATE (15 Jun 07): In case one needs more 'scholarship' about the similarities between Jesus and prior pagan myths, one might cite Elaine Pagels on p. 19 of her book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, discussed in the next article. Pagels is Head of the Religion Department at Princeton University, so her ability to do reliable scholarship should be as good as anybody's. Here is the relevant quote:
Back to Christianity Menu
Gospel of Thomas
Introduction (15 Jun 07): This article complements the previous one on the pagan origins of Christ. Elaine Pagels is a scholar of religion, who rose to become Head of the Religion Department at Princeton University. Hence, she should know something about serious scholarship! During her Ph.D. at Harvard, she was part of the original team investigating the manuscripts discovered in 1945 in a cave near the village of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. These famous documents have opened up a whole new vista on early Christianity, showing it to be full of diverse and often conflicting currents, thus lending credence to the idea that Jesus was a socio-religious fabrication rather than a specific human with miraculous powers and a divine mission. Eventually, the Church suppressed dissenting voices and destroyed non-canonical manuscripts, and in the 4th century, it imposed a dogma on its followers in the form of the Nicene Creed. This was necessary for its own preservation, thinks Pagels, who is more sympathetic to Christianity than the debunkers we met above.
Further research led to the best-seller Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, in which she argues that the Gospel of John was written to counter the 'gnostic' teachings of the long-lost Gospel of Thomas. Whereas John speaks of Jesus as equivalent to 'God the Father' and as 'the light of the world', who assumed human form and died on the cross in order to rescue us from sin, Thomas argues that Jesus is a 'divine light' inside each of us, which we can reach through introspection, without the intermediary of priests or of anybody's crucifixion. Naturally, this did not please the Church, and the heretical views of Thomas were soon suppressed. Note the striking similarity of the Gospel of Thomas to the Vedantic idea of the Atman as God dwelling within us as our true Self or essence. Such a 'natural' notion of spirituality, derived from meditation and mysticism rather than from prophets and revelation, seems to have underlain many of the ancient cults throughout the world.
Indeed, it does not take much imagination to see that such a 'gnostic' notion is more compatible than standard Church dogma with the traditional rising-and-dying Gods discussed previously, such as Dyonisus and company, since these were always taken to be symbolic. The fossilization of Jesus into a unique historical entity, complete with an actual gruesome crucifixion and an apostolic succession, can be seen as nothing but politics on the part of the early Church, to consolidate its authority and power. An ancient and harmless symbolic mysticism was transmogrified into a tool of power and oppression. A subtle inner spiritual transformation was corrupted into a blind and stultifying dogma.
If Christianity has any value, it is with Jesus restored to his true status as a mere teacher of the divine within, and not as a piece of meat nailed to a cross, which in some utterly irrational and primitive way is supposed to 'forgive our sins'. That was obviously a crude and pointless idea inspired by ancient animal sacrifices, perhaps concocted to explain the embarrassment of the real Jesus being executed. But the Mel Gibsons of the world love it! (And don't forget, if you don't believe in this piece of barbarity, you can't be 'saved'!)
Finally, if Jesus was a 'Son of God', it was in the sense that we all are, though there may possibly have been some sensitive soul wandering Galilee who realized this better than most of us. In that case, Jesus was just one of many spiritual teachers who have appeared on earth, along with Krishna, Buddha, Lao Tze, and their colleagues. Notice that the Hindus claim that Krishna was one of many avatars, and the later Buddhists accepted that the historical Buddha was one of many throughout the cosmos. They felt no need to turn their religion into some kind of spiritual monopoly, with a one-and-only 'true prophet'. As I said, that is nothing but power politics, very convenient for persecutions, crusades, jihads, and the colonization that went hand-in-glove with missionaries.
UPDATE (15 Jun 07): On the Amazon page for Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, one can read over 160 readers' comments, some quite thoughtful and/or lengthy. For example, one of them concludes:
Another reviewer comments:
Indeed, gnosticism distinguished itself as an elitist, mysogynistic faith that imposed a caste system among believers based on a 'secret knowledge' known only to the inner circle of believers. It was, after all, the orthodox Christians and not the gnostics that were the ones who were pointed out as how they love one another. It was the orthodox Christians that appealed to the downtrodden, the poor, the defenseless, and women. As I said, there are many more interesting readers' comments on this Amazon page, and it is worth spending some time here. One soon notices that as the comments get less sympathetic to Pagels, the literacy deteriorates and the spelling mistakes increase. But I'm grateful that red-state America even bothers to respond.
Back to Christianity Menu
Trilemma of C.S. Lewis
Introduction (17 Jun 07): C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) interests me, since he was an Oxford professor who promoted Christianity during a time when most of his colleagues had lost their faith. They denied the miracles outright, and allowed that Jesus was at most an inspired moral teacher. For 30 years, Lewis taught medieval history, and one supposes that he was familiar with the basic ideas against a literal interpretation of Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins. Indeed, he was an atheist during his youth, until some inner force drew him back reluctantly to faith. I have not read any of his works, so I will rely on brief descriptions of his arguments in favor of a traditional understanding of Jesus, as gleaned from the internet.
One such argument is the so-called 'trilemma', which can be found in his book Mere Christianity. Like many of his works, this one addressed a popular audience in the general English-speaking world, which, while not 'intellectual' in the strictest sense, was probably sufficiently literate to be aware of the beating that Christianity had been taking in the major universities for the last hundred years, so that Lewis' books no doubt provided some comfort. The basic argument of his trilemma is as follows:
1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3. Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine. The God Who Wasn't There DVD, mentioned previously, provides an interesting section on how fictional stories published on the internet can assume lives of their own as urban myths. This would be especially likely at the popular level, which was not guided by revered philosophers or sages, who fully understood the symbolic inner meaning of the myths. Besides, Lewis' argument for Jesus could be applied to Muhammad and many other religious leaders. Does this not lead to a bit of contradiction?
Lewis' life provides an interesting example of how an intelligent and educated person may be drawn to traditional religiosity through powerful subconscious forces, similar to those that have generated myths throughout the world, since before the beginning of human history. You may dismiss these myths as fantasy, but there is no doubt that they represent something powerful buried deep within the human psyche.
UPDATE (17 Jun 07): Francis Collins is an eminent biologist, who has worked on the Human Genome Project, and who has written a book defending his Christian faith, called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Collins believes in what he calls Theistic Evolution, which basically accepts modern science, including evolution, but appeals to a God who set it all in motion, so to speak. This would seem to be a variant of the Cosmological Argument, and it is not to be confused with Intelligent Design, which Collins rejects in its strict form, namely, that of a God actively intervening in the evolutionary process. I mention him here in this article on C.S. Lewis, because on p. 222 of Language of God, he provides a quote from Mere Christianity to make sense of the idea that God became man to die for our sins:
Now the words 'drop out of the ocean of His intelligence' intrigue me, since they remind me of a Vedantic view that does make sense to me. As I have discussed here, I can accept that there must be an ultimate 'cause' or 'source' of existence that must transcend the world in some sense, not least by being uncaused. Furthermore, this Source must have the nature of consciousness, as a material God seems preposterous, though the reality of evil effectively denies divine omnipotence in any naive sense. Finally, this Source must be omnipresent, to sustain the miracle of existence at all times and in all places. This, in a word, is my version of what might be called Deism. Our imperfections arise from ignorance, and ignorance will endure until we complete our long journey from darkness to light.
So rather than 'original sin', I would prefer to speak of ignorance, and rather than 'paying the price for our sins', I would prefer to speak of enlightenment or illumination, which occurs when we realize our true divinity within. This divinity sustains us at all times, though we do not realize it, but when the darkness of ignorance is replaced by the light of truth, then we will be complete and there will be no need for rebirth in a world like the present one. In no way does any of this require someone else, much less God, becoming encapsulated in flesh and suffering torture. On the contrary, any mature ethics requires that each rational being be responsible for his own thoughts and actions. As I said, I could accept that the divine may aid us with grace, if we are ready to receive it, but that has nothing to do with nailing some poor guy to a cross. I'm sorry Christians! Rationalize as you might, but this bit of barbarity has to go. Why not just give up and study Vedanta or Buddhism?
UPDATE (17 Jun 07): Here is a pleasant discussion between Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford. The good Bishop is admirably liberal, and no doubt Dawkins is far more concerned with nutty American right-wing evangelicals than with polite Anglicans from the same Oxford background as he. I was almost expecting the Bishop to declare the resurrection a myth, but no such luck! He is willing to compromise on the Virgin Birth, but he draws the line at the resurrection, which he takes literally. Well, I suppose the Bishop has to believe in something. Maybe in a few more generations, his successors will be more open to a purely mystical interpretation of Jesus, similar to Krishna and other such characters, and the whole Anglican clergy will have become avid students of Vedanta. At any rate, it is clear that the problem is not so much religion per se as religion in the brains of uneducated or semi-educated people. (Well, it might take a bit more than mere learning, as some of the 9/11 hijackers had advanced degrees. Let us say that it takes a liberal education — based on secular humanism and all that great stuff.)
UPDATE (28 Jun 07): My Hindu correspondent SRK has this to say:
I say this because of what I learnt from Elst's paraphrase of Herman Somers' writings (Section 3.5):
To be fair to Jesus, he was not exactly insane, but paraphrenic.
Christianity rests, not on any of Jesus' ethical positions, but on his exclusive claims of divinity and messiahood, as enunciated in the Nicene creed. Christianity is therefore based on the manifestations of Jesus' paraphrenia. Except during these episodes, he would have been like a normal man for all practical purposes, and not at all insane. Back to Christianity Menu
Does the Church Need God?
Introduction (11 Jul 07): This startling title is inspired by some comments from my Hindu correspondent SRK regarding a recent pronouncement by the Pope, as reported by CNN:
A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a 'wound' since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.
But the document said the 'wound is still more profound' in the Protestant denominations — a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.
'Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of Church could possibly be attributed to them', it said. This reminds SRK of some words from Sita Ram Goel in his book Defence of Hindu Society:
But Goel's point is that it doesn't stop there. The same intolerance that puts Muslims and Christians at each other's throats also wreaks havoc within those respective religions. The Muslims were fighting over the succession as soon as Mohammed died, which is the origin of the Sunni-Shia split that endures until today, with the sectarian violence in Iraq. The Christians were fighting within a few centuries of the death of Jesus, and various persecutions continued thereafter, until a crescendo of carnage was achieved during the horrible religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, pitting Catholic against Protestant. In all these cases, the issues were doctrine and political succession, with the two deeply intertwined. And of course, both religions were zealous in stamping out individual heretics and any freedom of thought that threatened their domination of society.
Why should one not conclude with Goel that such 'religions' are really about power and not about God? How could someone who truly loves God not realize that this love transcends such petty details as doctrine or religious organization? True mystics are inclined to emulate Lao Tze, disappearing from the world into the mists, rather than trying to control the world. In a word, the God of the Abrahamic religions has tended to be a tribal God, an inspirational device for conquest and social control, rather than a sublime reality encountered in the pure depths of meditation. Evidently, this spirit continues even today in the Catholic Church (and also in some American Protestant churches). It may be fortunate that the Church no longer has any political power, but even this very attitude is obnoxious and will poison the minds of the faithful. It is a disgrace. It has nothing to do with the love of God.
Goel also tells us why the Church and Ummah, along with the Christian and Muslim colonialists, have even bothered with the religious paraphernalia, rather than simply engaging in some candid, straightforward conquest, like a Caesar or a Genghis Khan. It is because of the great human weapon that results from deceiving the masses with false piety. As Pascal said, 'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.' People tend to have a natural sense of right and wrong, if their minds haven't been perverted with ideology. It is the great and awful irony of Abrahamic religions (and of the related religion of Communism) that they can brainwash men into extreme violence by appealing to a benevolent God or to an ideal society! Other religions simply don't do this. For instance, the so-called 'pagans' of pre-Christian Europe, or of India or China, fought too, like other humans, but rarely in the name of religion. My knowledge of history, such as it is, tells me that the blood spilled by Christianity and Islam over the centuries far exceeds that spilled by the pagans!
So does the Church need God? If a Church or Ummah is dominated by an aggressive and political spirit, as is often the case, then it needs a certain idea of God as a device to manipulate the followers, as a psychological weapon to erase their natural sense of fairness and friendliness towards others. Needless to say, this idea of God is the negation of true spirituality, hence of the blissful and loving 'God' encountered by true mystics and sages in their inner quest. Stated otherwise, it is simply a fact that contemplation and meditation, as practiced by Hindus, Buddhists, and a variety of 'pagan' religions, lead to a state of peace and ecstasy, which one may be pleased to call 'God'. In any case, such a state of consciousness can scarcely be political or aggressive in any way. The prophet and his doctrine, on the other hand, are ideological indoctrination, which is entirely different from introspective, mystical bliss.
The situation with the Abrahamic religions is complicated by the fact that various individuals in those traditions — as distinct from the religious hierarchy — have also achieved such peaceful and ecstatic states, and this has been exploited to give a 'good face' to the religions as a whole. The fact remains that the enlightened states of consciousness achieved by such 'saints' has nothing to do with the intolerant dogma that propels the religious organization as a political force. The two must be carefully distinguished. Also, the charity and 'good works' performed by religious organizations must be distinguished from the dogma. Charity does not necessarily indicate a benevolent dogma, though poor people tend to be much impressed by any help they receive. Charity is thus often used as a weapon for expansion, which is particularly unfair when missions in poor countries are backed by wealthy donors back home.
UPDATE (12 Jul 07): It is necessary to admit that a great many people in any religion seem decent enough when encountered in a face-to-face and informal way. This further complicates the picture, even beyond the presence of some genuine saints in otherwise militant religions. As I said above, most people will tend to be decent and friendly to others, unless incited by their leaders into hostility. Moreover, they often have only a vague grasp of the dogma of their own religion, which to them consists largely of ceremonies that give life some meaning and dignity. Thus, when criticizing the intolerant ideology of Christianity and Islam, one always faces the delicate problem of unintentionally offending many individual Christians or Muslims, who might otherwise be good people.
A lot has to do with semantics (which are behind many of the conflicts in politics). It is clumsy always to specify precisely which particular subgroup one is thinking of, so one tends to speak in generalities that go too far. Religions, like all human categories, are mixed bags, with a range of individuals, and with a plethora of viewpoints varying from the standard, all of which leads to much confusion and misunderstanding.
In particular, one must always distinguish between the leadership (generally antagonistic) and the rank-and-file (often decent) of the religions we have been discussing. The very hierarchal nature of a religious organization tends to prevent the kinder and gentler souls from rising to the top. Only the politicians succeed, as a general rule, making organized religions resemble the rapacious mega-corporations that now dominate the world economy. The organization becomes a ravenous machine, constantly hungry for converts or profits, and never satisfied with what it has. The milk of human kindness can hardly survive at the peak of such an organization, though it may among the humbler souls who do the heavy lifting for modest reward.
Back to Christianity Menu
Introduction
Using Misery to Spread the Faith
More than 900 million people are lost in the hopeless darkness of Hinduism, worshipping 300 million gods and goddesses created by the imagination of men and women searching for a source of truth and strength. ... Hindus believe that all people are trapped in a vicious circle of birth, death and reincarnation, and that the only hope of escape is by achieving unity with the gods. They seek power and blessing through the worship of gods and goddesses and the demonic powers that lay behind them.
What Justin and Clement said of Greece may equally well be said of India. The Logos was mysteriously preparing the way for his coming and the Holy Spirit stimulated spiritually the gropings of the purest minds among the Greeks. The Logos and the Holy Spirit are again at work and in a similar manner in the depths of the Indian soul. Unfortunately, Indian philosophy is spotted with error and does not appear to have found its proper equilibrium. And neither did the Greek until the message of the risen Christ had been humbly received by Greece. Outside the unique revelation and the one Church, man everywhere and always is incapable of filtering the good through the evil, truth through error. But once christianized, Greece rejected the errors of her ancestors - especially their too cosmic perspective and their forgetfulness of the transcendental aspect of the Absolute - and having been baptized in the blood of her martyrs, she became mistress of the world in philosophy, theology, and mysticism. So, in the same manner, with confidence in the unwavering direction of the Gospel, it is our hope that India, once baptized in the depth of her "quest for Brahman" which has endured for centuries, will reject her pantheistic tendencies; and, discovering in the Holy Spirit the true mysticism, will engender, for the good of humanity and the Church, and for the glory of God, dazzling galaxies of saints and doctors.
Koenraad Elst: The Problem of Christian Missionaries
K.M. Talreja: Holy Vedas & Holy Bible: A comparative study
Shourie continues, "There are volumes upon volumes that document the way the Church has spread by violence - in North and South America. The sudden jumps in the number of adherents during famines and other privations, testify to the use to which such times were put..."118 He mentions a chapter, 'Spiritual Advantages of Famine and Cholera', in a Catholic publication, India and Its Missions, brought out in 1823. The chapter carries a report from the Archbishop of Pondicherry to his superiors in Europe. This high dignitary of the Catholic Church exults, "The famine has wrought miracles. The catechumenates are filling, baptismal water flows in streams, and starving little tots fly in masses to heaven... A hospital is a readymade congregation. There is no need to go into the highways and hedges and 'compel them to come in'. They send each other."119
Seema Sirohi: Tsunami victims need Jesus
Arun Shourie: Myths about the Swami
Arun Shourie: Spiritual Renewal the Hindu Way
... 44% of Americans believe that within their lifetimes Jesus Christ will literally descend from the sky and take his followers with him up to heaven.
... the current political trend [towards religious fundamentalism] in America is deeply worrying to all decent people throughout the world,
... Bush seems sincerely to see the world as a battleground between Good and Evil, St Michael's angels against the forces of Lucifer.
Orion News Blog: Intelligent Design
Andrew Sullivan: My Problem with Christianism
Scarborough Country: Mel Gibson vs. Michael Moore
Hot Air: Mel Gibson erupts with Jew-hate after DWI arrest [more]
Stephen Pollard: BBC covers up Gibson's antisemitism [more]
"What we want, now, is for the government to fully recognise our religion," Vasillis Tsantilas told the Guardian. "We will petition the Greek parliament, and the EU if that fails, for access to worship in places like the Acropolis, for permission to have our own cemeteries and, where necessary, to re-bury the [ancient] bones of the dead.
Blood is what "saves" the people, sayeth the doctrine. The blood of the "Lamb" was shed that ye may be saved. And yet, there are people who deride Mel Gibson for making the Passion excessively gory. The box office success of the film shows how important blood is, even today, in the allegedly "enlightened" west. Dr. Herman Somers has taken us beyond such distractions to a deeper understanding of the malady. In the final analysis, it seems that evil has its roots in ignorance, in accordance with the Pagan view, from Shankara to Socrates. Here is Elst's summary of Somers' analysis of the bloodiest part of the Bible.
ZEUS MAKES A COMEBACK IN GREECE
CNN, 21 Jan 07
ATHENS, Greece (AP) — A clutch of modern pagans honored Zeus at a 1,800-year-old temple in the heart of Athens on Sunday — the first known ceremony of its kind held there since the ancient Greek religion was outlawed by the Roman Empire in the fourth century.
Pope: Hell and damnation are real and eternal
By way of clarification, I will point out that, contrary to the assumption of many pious people, the Judeo-Christian tradition is in no way necessary to develop an ethical sense, but it may have served this purpose in Europe, if only because it had a monopoly over spiritual life.
"I assume this was inadvertant on your part. The said 'idiocy' is not a function of geography, but theology. It is more accurately the prophetic-monotheistic idiocy. Middle Eastern societies were Pagan societies too, until Moses came with his divine real estate deal to Caanan, and told his followers to 'destroy altars, and cut own sacred groves' [Exodus 34:11-17]. Today, we would have called them antisocial vandals, and perhaps arranged for medication and counselling for the milder cases. History is witness to the fact that this has nothing to do with geography. Anglo-Saxons, Hellenes, Romans, Indians, Africans, Arabs, Mongols et al. are equally susceptible to this disease in spite of the varying climes they inhabit, because the problem arises from the demonic component of human nature, which is referred to as 'sampadam aasurim' in the Bhagavad Gita [BG 16:4]."
J.D. Carson: Islam, Christianity, Classical Civilization, and Modernity
Daily Mail: Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate
Keith Windschuttle: Which Enlightenment?
Brooke Allen: Our Godless Constitution
K. Parker: The Christians Are Coming, the Christians Are Coming!
Andrew Walden (FPM): Muslims and Secularists Attack Pope
Sam Harris: Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists
David van Biema (TIME): The Passion of the Pope
Dennis Prager (FPM): America Was Meant to Be Free, Not Secular
Here is an in-depth discussion of the influence of Christianity over American politics.
But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.
Greg Kane: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
Earl Doherty: A Review of Tom Harpur's 'The Pagan Christ'
J.P. Holding: A Critical Look at Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ
THE GIFT OF THE PAGAN CHRIST
by Judy Sullivan, Women's Concerns Magazine, 2005: Issue One
Fundamental/literal Christianity taught me that I was dead in my sins. It taught me that I had to rely by faith upon Jesus Christ to save me, and that it was only through the resurrection after this life that I would be truly 'alive'. As a result I learned to live unconsciously and irresponsibly towards myself, and the world in general. Fundamental/literal Christianity taught me to live fully reliant and dependent upon a source outside myself, and to see that source as my only hope. The foundational belief of this form of Christianity is that we are sinners in need of a saviour. 'No one is good—not one.' (Romans 3:12) The belief that our salvation comes only through the death of someone outside ourselves (Jesus Christ), pleading to another someone outside ourselves (God the Father), empowered to live in this life by another someone outside ourselves (the Holy Spirit), who by invitation dwells in this sinful body—is totally disempowering and completely irresponsible towards the individual that I was born to be.
According to Lord Raglan and Alan Dundes
Born of a virgin mother
Father was a king
A 'Son of (a) God'
Attempt on his life at birth
Spirited away to safety
Little known of childhood
Returns as man and becomes a 'king'
Loses favor with his people
A sacramental meal (body and blood)
A mysterious and unusual death
Often at the top of a hill
No children succeed him
His body is not buried
Various ancient heroes are scored according to the 22 criteria, and Jesus comes in third!
Oedipus: 22
Theseus: 20
Jesus: 19
Romulus: 17
Hercules: 17
Perseus: 16
Zeus: 15
Jason: 15
Robin Hood: 13
Apollo: 11
Jesus is more pagan than most pagans, so to speak. Do you seriously believe that this is just a 'coincidence'? A Christian might reply that Jesus was special, in that his death brought us 'salvation'. Wrong again! As Price reminds us, Jesus fit into the dying-and-rising savior god-man myth represented by such diverse figures as Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Tamuz and many others. Moreover, these savior gods also share many of the hero characteristics, such as being born of a virgin, and they further resemble Jesus in performing miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and so on. The similarities just pile on!
"When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call sons of Jupiter."
So what does Justin Martyr make of these curious similarities? He appeals to that age-old trick of the Church: It's the Devil's fault!
"For when they say that Dionysius arose again and ascended to heaven, is it not evident that the devil has imitated the prophecy?"
Evident to a fanatic, no doubt. To rational people, its seems very much like a case of 'special pleading', to use Price's own words. At first, Justin Martyr tries to make his Jesus plausible to his fellow pagans by noting similarities between Jesus and their gods. Then, once he realizes that those very similarities render his Jesus into something less than unique, he covers his embarrassment by invoking the devil! This demonstrates not only the flawed logic of his thinking but also the egotistical jealousy that Christians have felt throughout the ages towards other religions.
Greg Kane: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
Brian Flemming: The God Who Wasn't There
Earl Doherty: The Jesus Puzzle
Earl Doherty: Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces
Mike Licona: A Review of Brian Flemming's DVD
Earl Doherty: Response to Mike Licona
Earl Doherty: Response to James Patrick Holding
Earl Doherty: A Review of The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur
Earl Doherty: A Review of Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price
Earl Doherty: A Review of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man
Earl Doherty: A Review The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
A full 40 years pass between the death of Jesus (~30 CE) and the first gospels (~70 CE). During this time, the only solid evidence for the existence of Jesus is the letters of St. Paul. Unfortunately, those letters speak of a mystical notion of Jesus and omit virtually all references to his life, all the well-known details of the Gospels. Paul refers only to the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, and even these are not placed on earth. That certainly sounds suspicious! It sounds very much as though Jesus originated as a spiritual concept, like the Dionysus of the Greek Mysteries, which was then embellished with all kinds of 'realistic' biographical details patterned after the hero myth. In Paul's Book of Hebrews, he is even quoted as saying, 'If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest.' (Hebrews 8:4)
An atheist historian named Richard Carrier points out that allegorical literature was very common at that time, and even the authors of the Gospels probably did not believe that they were writing factual biographies. Alan Dundes then mentions the many 'apocrypha', which closely resemble the Gospels, but were arbitrarily thrown out by the early Church.
Robert Price then contrasts the mythologizing of Jesus with another figure of the time, Caesar Augustus. Augustus was also endowed with many divine qualities, but there is no way that the person of Augustus can be written out of history. However, Jesus only makes contact with history in two spurious incidents: (i) the slaughter of the innocents, plagiarized from the Old Testament (and not recorded by the great contemporary Jewish historian Josephus), which sounds suspiciously like the prior 'hero' stories of Moses, Sargon and others, and (ii) the trial by the Sanhedrin, or Jewish council. Price argues that it would have been 'out of the question' for this council to meet on the eve of Passover, as would have been Pontius Pilate allowing Barabbas, a killer of Romans, to go free, while throwing Jesus to the wolves (after first trying to free him). All this is highly implausible and inconsistent with what is known of the times. Then there were other ancient Jews and Christians who believed that Jesus was killed a century earlier. Or in the Gospel of Peter, it says that Herod had Jesus killed. It would take the O.J. jury to believe all of this conflicting evidence! Well, maybe that is how some popular religions survive. That is, the O.J. jury may have consisted of fairly average people in terms of their ability to think and criticize.
Some other evidence against a literal and historical Jesus, such as the so-called midrash tradition of Judaism and the mysterious 'Q' literature, is not discussed in the DVD. A quick glance at these topics can be found here, in Earl Doherty's summation of his scholarly Jesus Puzzle research. More information can be obtained by following the links.
For thousands of years, humans have been obsessed with blood sacrifices. As Flemming cleverly remarks, 'Of course, Christians today are no longer obsessed with blood sacrifices', and segues to scenes from Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster movie, The Passion of Christ, awash in divine gore. Out of 119 minutes, only 16 contain no blood, violence or suffering. (Flemming did his homework. A careful accounting of each minute scrolls up the screen of the DVD!) Gibson's movie, adjusted for inflation, made $370 million dollars (and counting) at the box office, compared to, say, a paltry $55 million for the kinder and gentler Jesus Christ Superstar. The Passion of Christ is by far the favorite Jesus movie of American Christians. It seems that those primitive instincts die hard! There's something bloodthirsty in us. (Let me guess. Is Gibson by any chance a Republican?)
Then the DVD cuts to contemporary right-wing American Christian politics, with its vitriolic liberal and gay-hating preachers. Did the example of Jesus' bloody sacrifice psychologically predispose Republicans for the bloody and disastrous invasion of Iraq? Perhaps. Oh well, I'm not worried. We're such an advanced and educated nation that there is no way the Middle Ages could return here. (Or ... at least ... I hope not!). One always hears that there is a bright side and a dark side to any religion. Well, the proportions are not the same for all religions, and the militant side of Christianity seems to have been awfully popular throughout the ages and is alive and well in the world's sole superpower. No doubt, that is further evidence of the truth of Christianity for those in our wonderful country who favor the tribal approach to religion.
Take the case of homosexuals. Our press duly informs us that Christian conservatives think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. That may seem reasonable enough, but we are not so often informed that some right-wing Christians think that homosexuals should be put to death. They are supposedly only a 'fringe'. What is far more than a fringe is the sizeable fraction of Americans who think that the Bible should be taken literally. Well, in Leviticus 1, we read that homosexuals should be put to death. Do you really think this doesn't have a powerful effect on those who are convinced that the Bible is the very word of God? Perhaps they aren't killing homosexuals today, but what would happen if, say, more terrorism led to a breakdown of our social order? (Already, the God-fearing Republicans, with cowardly Democratic acquiescence, have curtailed the Constitution in a way that would recently have seemed unthinkable.) How many thousands or millions of religious killers might come out of the woodwork? Were the pre-WWII Germans all that special or different from us? As Flemming acutely remarks, why do 'moderate' Christians think they get any support from the Bible? The God of the Bible is anything but moderate. Even the New Testament: "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me," says Jesus in Luke 19:27.
Or take the case of the Inquisition. You may yawn and consider that ancient history, but the important point, as Flemming points out, is that the Inquisition was not a perversion of Christian doctrine but rather an expression of it. Are the stakes not that high? Is it not mercy to torture someone for a few hours in order to save him from eternal hell? Does moderate Christianity make any real sense? Both Old and New Testaments insist that there is only one path to salvation. Since we are talking about forever, which is a rather long time, what sense does it make to be 'moderate'? Of course, in real life, people don't think things through. They just appreciate the social and psychological comforts of their church and let psychological inertia take care of the rest.
Sam Harris tells us that 22% of Americans are certain that Jesus will come back to earth in the next 50 years or so to judge the living and the dead. Another 22% think this will probably happen. This adds up to 44% or about half of all Americans! Hooray for democracy! According to Harris, 45,000 churches, with 30 million members, think that the Bible is the infallible and authoritative Word of God. Millions of Americans think that global conflict (a.k.a WW IV) would actually be the precursor to the return of Jesus. Thus, they have reason to welcome it, which should gladden the heart of Norman Podhoretz. Indeed, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, co-authors of the wildly popular Left Behind series, believe that many of the Biblical signs of the End of Days have already occurred in recent international events. It's all happening before our eyes! Can't argue with that. Hence, websites such as this. The author of the website appears on the DVD and seems like a thoroughly decent person. That is disquieting! It's not just the wild-eyed crazies. Such is the power of brainwashing, which religion often is.
from Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas
But, in their own time, many Jews and Gentiles might have recognized the eucharist as typical of ancient cult worship. Justin Martyr the philosopher worried that pagans would dismiss these rituals with contempt and charge that Christians were simply copying what worshippers in the so-called mystery religions did every day in their exotic cults. Justin admits that the priests who presided over the various temples of 'devils' — the gods of Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Asia Minor — often asked their initiates to perform 'washings' like baptism, and that priests of the Persian sun god Mithras and the Greek Dionysus 'commanded the same things be done' as Jesus allegedly did — even 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' of their god in sacred meals. But Justin insists that these supposed similarities are actually imitations of Christian worship inspired by demons who hope to 'deceive and seduce the human race' into thinking that the Christian cult is no different from the mystery cults. Justin might have worried more had he foreseen that, from the fourth century on, Christians would celebrate a new festival — the birthday of Jesus — on December 25, the birthday of the sun god Mithras, around the time of the winter solstice, when the waning sun is reborn as the days grow longer.
Religion & Ethics Newsweekly: Interview with Elaine Pagels
PBS NOW: Bill Moyers interviews Elaine Pagels
[Pagels presents] an interesting argument [that the early Church suppressed Thomas and promoted John], but I have some reservations. First off, it is not clear when the Gospel of Thomas was written. Dates range from 50 CE to 200 CE, with strong arguments for an early date made by Pagels' teacher, Helmut Koester, in his Ancient Christian Gospels, and with what appear to me stronger arguments for a later date made by John Meier in the first volume of A Marginal Jew. So any connection between John and Thomas strikes me as rather weak. More important, there is the subtle way that Pagels adapts early Christianity to the needs and prejudices of her middle-class American audience. A more open and tolerant Christianity? A greater sense of experience over dogma? A greater valuation of feminine experience? Who could object to that? Well, it is noteworthy that Pagels does not quote Thomas 114: 'For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.' And many Christian sects have emphasized ecstatic experience, from Russia to Africa, from Jonathan Edwards to Pentecostals. Do they really tell us more about wisdom, humanity and truth than, say, Spinoza, Freud or Adorno? There is something very American, as Christopher Lasch has pointed out, in this cult of experience. It is all well to search for inner peace. But what do either John or Thomas have to say about living with other people that Jefferson or Dewey, Marx or Gramsci have not already said?
Well, it is true that some of our fire-breathing evangelicals are not exactly open-minded in their beliefs. Still, I think that as a rule, a free and sincere pursuit of introspective spiritual experience is far better than any imposition of dogma, including on children, and leads to a more tolerant and open mind. A few retrograde evangelicals do not negate the terrible legacy of the Catholic Church, which continues to this day in some Protestant churches! Also, note that even if there is some uncertainty in the dates, it remains clear that gnostic ideas were popular in the early Church and were suppressed by the hierarchy. That is Pagels' main point (but the desperate die-hard conservatives will clutch at any straws).
Claiming the gnostics as allies in a rebellion against credal formulations is pure folly and a blatant distortion of the reality of this early heresy. Each gnostic group did have clear beliefs. They frequently contradicted other gnostic groups and were often internally inconsistent but they were there none the less. The great irony is the things that Pagels states she loves about the early Church — its care for the poor, its elevated (for the time) treatment of women, etc. were things that were common among the orthodox Christians and not the gnostics!
Sure, there were different gnostic sects with different beliefs, but the point is that they didn't try to impose those beliefs an anybody, as the organized Church did. Duh! As for the social work, the same could be said of Islam, which also tends to have a repressive ideology. And let us not forget Communism, which promised economic security to the poor in exchange for political freedom. The poor in their desperation often turn to such authoritarian movements. Social work may be both 'good' and 'bad': good when it provides relief to the suffering and bad when it is exploited as a tool for political power, as it often is. That is how missionaries in India have tended to use it, backed by wealthy Christian donors in the West. I think this reviewer knows something about missionary tricks! He speaks of caste and elites and 'secret knowledge', which brings to mind the Brahmins of India. Why shouldn't some religious groups be secretive, as long as they keep to themselves and don't try to suppress alternative views? India has certainly never lacked for alternative religious views, so we can't blame the Brahmins for that!
THE C.S. LEWIS TRILEMMA
There are only three logical options regarding the story of Jesus:
Many Christians, upon reading the Gospels, and trusting in the words of someone named 'Jesus', find it difficult to believe that he was either a liar or a fool. This may seem like wishful thinking, but for comparison, imagine trying to call Gandhi or Martin Luther King a liar or a fool. However, based on the discussions above, I think that the trilemma is too narrow in its choices. We have seen that many 'pagans' of the time believed in symbolic religious ideas of dying-and-rising 'savior Gods' that were meant to express an inner transformation. The Gospel of Thomas provides further evidence of similar thinking, in the form of a gnostic belief in Jesus as the 'inner light'. It is entirely possible that some inspired teacher in Galilee echoed the Gnostics and drew a small following; his teaching was then mistakenly rendered literal in the oral tradition, resulting in the full blown story (or rather stories) of the Gospels.
C.S. LEWIS ON WHY GOD BECAME MAN
But supposing God became man — suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person — then that person could help us. He could surrender his will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because he was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if he becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He himself need not suffer at all.
This argument seems very poor to me. Why would God 'becoming a man' have any beneficial influence on the rest of us? Or at least, why would this have an influence that God could not bestow directly? I could accept that this grace cannot be granted unless we are pure enough to receive it. But then it is up to us to cultivate that purity, though meditation or otherwise. What does some grisly crucifixion have to do with it? And to whom must a 'price' be paid for our sins? Some greater malevolent deity to whom God is subordinate? Or is God a cold-hearted banker? The whole crucifixion myth seems clearly to be based on ancient and primitive ideas of animal sacrifice, perhaps embellished with a garbled version of the gnostic notion of divinity within.
I recently read your piece about C.S.Lewis' 'trilemma'. You conclude that the trilemma is too narrow in its choices; that may well be from a logical point of view, but may I suggest that it is sufficient? That is, option 2 is the closest to the truth:
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
"Paraphrenia is a fairly rare mental affliction in which the patient develops a delusion (mostly genetic, i.e. concerning his parents or ancestry), which is triggered and fed by only rarely occurring hallucinatory crises. Starting from this delusion, he builds up an entire system complete with interpretative delusions (misreading events to make them fit, rather than disturb, the basic delusion). Otherwise he remains well-integrated in his environment.9 Paraphernia is sometimes classified in the larger category of paranoia and opposed to schizophrenia. In contrast to the schizophrenic, the paraphrenic remains adapted to his milieu, has a coherent thinking and a well-organized behaviour. Generally hallucinations are rare, but initiate a delusional state, often with a grandiose genetic theme. The paraphrenic is very sensitive to opposition to his ideas; he is therefore somewhat secretive, and often full of resentment and hate. This is exactly the image the Gospel has painted of Jesus."
Well, I am no expert on 'paraphrenia', but I do agree with Bertrand Russell that Jesus shows some neurotic tendencies, such as being hurt and angry when people don't believe him. Overall, I am inclined to think that the Jesus of history is an exceedingly shadowy figure. The Jesus we are familiar with is more likely the invention of the Church, as discussed above. Doctrinal rigidity was no doubt intimately tied to the politics of Church and/or Empire.
VATICAN: NON-CATHOLICS 'WOUNDED'
BY NOT RECOGNIZING POPE
CNN, 10 July 07
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) — The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
DEENCE OF HINDU SOCIETY: CH. 4
Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India
In the last analysis, God is really a superfluity in this system of thought. A time comes when God imparts his final revelation to the only son or the last prophet, and retires to a well-deserved rest after entrusting the fate of his world as well as of his creatures to the keeping of the son or the prophet. In due course, the son or the prophet also is dead and gone after bequeathing his monopoly over truth and virtue to the Church or the Ummah. The Church or the Ummah, in turn, is dominated by a single man or a clique that can control and use a mighty military machine which has been built in the meanwhile. In the final round, it all ends up as imperialist aggression against other people in which a veneer of religious verbiage is retained in order to sustain the self-righteousness of the aggressor.
Note that Goel is referring to both Christianity and Islam. One cannot deny that untold millions have died due to the holy wars of both religions, which included not only crusades and jihads, but also centuries of colonialism throughout the world. It is interesting to note that, in these religions, the emphasis is indeed on the prophet, at least at first, since it is the unique prophet who gives legitimacy to the claim that the religion is 'better' than others. After all, if we are all worshipping the same God, what is there to argue or fight over? In theory, the different 'prophets' should only be different voices of the same God. But history has shown that Christianity and Islam are rarely content with such egalitarianism, and one prophet must triumph, often by force.
Breitbart: First ever Hindu prayer shouted down in Senate
Historian Barton says Hindu prayer before Senate raises concerns