A Neo-christianity?

[Neon Genesis]

In the thread about "Most Christians Don't Believe In The Bible?" Ruby mentioned a man by the name of Tom Harpur who doesn't believe Jesus existed as a historical figure but self-identifies as a Christian. In other religions you have Buddhists who follow the teachings of Buddha but don't literally believe in reincarnation and neopagans who see their deities as more pantheistic-type symbols. So, if there can be neopaganism, can there be a neo-Christianity? Is it possible to see Jesus as a symbolic deity like it's possible for neopagans to do the same with theirs or do you think this is simply too incompatible with Christianity?

[The-Captain]

Thought we called them liberal Christians?

[upstarter]

Yeah, I sort of agree with John. I think many liberal xtians struggle with belief in a literal Christ, but they like the ritual, the community, the "moral compass" of following the tenets (at least the ones they choose) of xtianity.

 

I do think this is a form of neo-xtianity. It's more of a way of living, a belief in the teachings rather than a belief in the person of Christ.

 

Heather

[Deva]

Yes, there already is neo-Christianity and has been for some time. It is a re-interpreted Christianity stripped of all historicity and based solely on metaphor.

 

Traditional Christianity makes claims that certain events are historically and scientifically accurate. The gospels were written in such a manner that the casual reader would take them for eyewitness accounts. Aside from very early Christianity, which seemed to have a wide variety of different doctrines and no consensus, gnosticism, etc., up until the 18th century enlightenment there was no question that Christianity made claims to both historical and scientific truth. The trial of Galileo and the Scopes trial are demonstrations.

[Dhampir]

Well, as I understand, the idea that the Buddha is NOT a god, that there IS NO reincarnation, and that nothing supernatural has any significance, as the supernatural is beyond comprehension, is much closer to what the Buddha, and subsequent early Buddhists taught. Zen teaches about the Natural World, and doesn't (AFAIK) concern itself with anything that can't be observed directly. Religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, uphold Buddha as a god, teach reincarnation, etc.

 

I assume that most religions don't start as psychedelic as they end up once they come to prominence. It doesn't seem impossible that the patrons (matrons) of a lot of religions don't start out being revered as gods, that this occurs later, in those religions where people are elevated to some lofty status. Jesus was probably looked at as either a wise "prophet" with a good message, or a metaphor of some sort, then elevated through re-tellings of his story, and comparison to other religions where their patrons were or became gods.

 

So it's easy to see how people can identify their religious figures as metaphorical, while still adhering to them.

[Deva]

Religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, uphold Buddha as a god..

 

That is incorrect. It is a misunderstanding.

 

We must stress that the word deity is understood in a rather unique way by Buddhist practitioners. It is used for lack of a better word. The translation "tutelary deity" for the Tibetan yidam is misleading as it implies a teacher-student relation. The term "meditational deity" is now preferred.

 

These figures are understood by a Buddhist to arise and return to Emptiness; they have no inherent reality. They are not worshipped in the sense of idolatry, though certainly it may seem to be so for example, when someone first encounters people doing full prostrations before images on a shrine. That is one good reason for avoiding the use (in a Buddhist context) of the term 'altar', by the way.

 

http://www.khandro.net/Deities.htm

 

However, this thread is not primarily about Buddhism and misconceptions of Buddhism, so I will not comment further.

 

Neon is correct that there are people who interpret Buddhism for themselves just as Christianity does. Whether or not they are "following the teachings of the Buddha" is, of course, open to interpretation.

[Dhampir]

Religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, uphold Buddha as a god..

 

That is incorrect. It is a misunderstanding.

 

We must stress that the word deity is understood in a rather unique way by Buddhist practitioners. It is used for lack of a better word. The translation "tutelary deity" for the Tibetan yidam is misleading as it implies a teacher-student relation. The term "meditational deity" is now preferred.

 

These figures are understood by a Buddhist to arise and return to Emptiness; they have no inherent reality. They are not worshipped in the sense of idolatry, though certainly it may seem to be so for example, when someone first encounters people doing full prostrations before images on a shrine. That is one good reason for avoiding the use (in a Buddhist context) of the term 'altar', by the way.

 

http://www.khandro.net/Deities.htm

 

However, this thread is not primarily about Buddhism and misconceptions of Buddhism, so I will not comment further.

 

Neon is correct that there are people who interpret Buddhism for themselves just as Christianity does. Whether or not they are "following the teachings of the Buddha" is, of course, open to interpretation.

 

I got my info from a Zen practitioner, though I may be remembering incorrectly. If he were still around, I'd ask him directly. He was/is very knowledgeable on dozens of Buddhist sects.

[Vomit Comet]

Liberal Christianity = attempting to shine shit, even though you can't.

[Dhampir]

Liberal Christianity = attempting to shine shit, even though you can't.

 

Oh, I don't know. My old dog once took a shit in the basement somewhere, and by the time I found it, it was as hard as a rock, and shiny as glass.

[R. S. Martin]

Yes, there already is neo-Christianity and has been for some time. It is a re-interpreted Christianity stripped of all historicity and based solely on metaphor.

 

Traditional Christianity makes claims that certain events are historically and scientifically accurate. The gospels were written in such a manner that the casual reader would take them for eyewitness accounts. Aside from very early Christianity, which seemed to have a wide variety of different doctrines and no consensus, gnosticism, etc., up until the 18th century enlightenment there was no question that Christianity made claims to both historical and scientific truth. The trial of Galileo and the Scopes trial are demonstrations.

 

I disagree. Fundamentalist Christians imagine they are like historic Christianity but they are wrong. Pre-Enlightenment people thought so very differently from us. Neither historically, nor scientifically, nor metaphorically true would have had any meaning for them. They did not think like that. Galileo (1564-1642) was a product of the Enlightenment. So are we and our way of thinking. This includes fundamentalist religion as well as liberal religion.

INSERT EDIT: I did some research just now. The

wikipedia article

on Enlightenment does not list Galileo as an Enlightenment figure. According to that article, the earliest date scholars set for the beginning of the Enlightenment is mid-seventeenth century. Quote:

 

If taken back to the mid-1600's, the Enlightenment would trace its origins to Descartes'

Discourse on the Method

, published in 1637.

 

In my opinion, Galileo contributed to the Enlightenment and should be listed. However, he is not a product of it as we are, but one of those who helped bring it about.

It is impossible to go back to the time before the Enlightenment. For that to happen, we will need at the very least one or two centuries of no formal education for the general public. We will need enough time to loose all effects of what has been learned over the past five centuries. Not only do we have to lose all the technology of today but the very memory that we ever had it. The pyramids can apparently remain but no memory of how or why they came into existence.

 

My guess is that far more needs to happen than the mere passage of time. Something tragic will have to happen that totally upsets the social and economic order, and possibly even the geographic world, as we know it. A universal flood--or a flood that covers a major landmass--that wipes out all life for over a year might accomplish this. However, with universal air travel and instant communication in all (most; I think there are a few countries such as Iran that don't allow the internet) societies around the globe today, this is hardly going to happen. Even if Southern California, or some other major landmass, sinks into the ocean, the rest of the world will know about it in short order and go look what happened--and take some part or other of their culture with them. I doubt that there is a remote society anywhere today that has never seen a Styrofoam cup or pop can. Whatever happens will have to be bigger than Noah's Flood.

 

I emphasize this because we simply cannot imagine what the pre-Enlightenment Church was like. I think the closest we can come is by reading their poetry, theology, hermeneutics, and accept that they actually mean things the way they say them. However, this is difficult because all we have is marks on paper or on stone or clay or whatever surface. Those marks symbolize words and the words symbolize concepts. The concepts symbolize something about life as people understood it. See how many layers we are removed from what people say? With much study and immersion in their literature, we may be able to get some concept or intuition of what the world looked and seemed like to them.

 

About "neo-Christianity"--I have no idea but the term makes sense to me. The only question I have is why? Christians like John Shelby Spong use the term "progressive" to describe themselves. What's the problem with that term? It differentiates between liberal and extra over-the-top untraditional. His type would burn at the stake right along with us if this were medieval Europe. "Neo" has been used along with such terms as "reformation" as in neo-reformation.

 

The first Reformation was when Luther broke away from the RCC in about 1520 or whenever. He started a tradition of starting new churches. Anabaptists and Calvinists were two other groups that started in the same century and still exist today (if I've got my history straight). Church of England may have started the following century when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the pope refused to grant it. Henry started his own church (Church of England, Anglican, Episcopal--different names in different countries) and divorced and remarried as he saw fit.

 

Sorry if that's a mini-lecture. Skip it if it's not your cup of tea. It helps me solidify what I learned if I regurgitate it and look stuff up, etc. No guarantee that all the facts are accurate so if any students are reading, DO NOT use it as the basis for your own papers.

[Deva]

I disagree.

 

I am not surprised.

 

Fundamentalist Christians imagine they are like historic Christianity but they are wrong. Pre-Enlightenment people thought so very differently from us. Neither historically, nor scientifically, nor metaphorically true would have had any meaning for them.

 

You have no idea what fundamentalist Christians are. I am too tired to explain it to you again, having tried over a year ago to do so when you blew me off. Your Christian background is not fundamentalist and your professors have less of an idea of what it is than you do.

 

Sorry if that's a mini-lecture. Skip it if it's not your cup of tea. It helps me solidify what I learned if I regurgitate it and look stuff up, etc. No guarantee that all the facts are accurate so if any students are reading, DO NOT use it as the basis for your own papers.

 

Yeah, I will feel free to skip it and future ones. The "ignore" feature is nice here sometimes.

[PocketAces]

In the thread about "Most Christians Don't Believe In The Bible?" Ruby mentioned a man by the name of Tom Harpur who doesn't believe Jesus existed as a historical figure but self-identifies as a Christian. In other religions you have Buddhists who follow the teachings of Buddha but don't literally believe in reincarnation and neopagans who see their deities as more pantheistic-type symbols. So, if there can be neopaganism, can there be a neo-Christianity? Is it possible to see Jesus as a symbolic deity like it's possible for neopagans to do the same with theirs or do you think this is simply too incompatible with Christianity?

i think its very possible. it always done and its the only way it can be done. no one alive today has witnessed a historical christ, so any image of christ that one holds to is only a symbolic meaning that has the very likelihood of that being never existing in the first place just as the same as with the being existed in the past. some Christians would probably disagree with me, or maybe non-believers bu i have yet to see any evidence that christians don't already do what your asking if it can or can't be done.