PDA

View Full Version : Christianity - Another Viewpoint



yajvan
07 October 2007, 01:05 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Here's some thoughts for consideration. Note, I am not a scholar on this matter. As of late my eyes have turned to similarities, same-nss (sama) and even-ness of things.

This has taken me to some studies¹ I wish to share. So this is my view point to perhaps stimulate a conversation on finding commonality vs. diversity. See what you think.

We know that Christianity is grounded in Jesus the Christ. What is the root of Christ? Christos or the anointed one. This comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mashiach or ha mashiah - the anointed one , the messiah, from the Jewish faith.

And what are some of these principles of the Jewish faith? If we know some of these we know the roots of Christianity... the faith that Jesus was part of.

The 13 Principles of Jewish Faith - the parallels to Sanatana Dharma


The Existence of God: The existence of Brahman and/or Ishvara. Brahman is Existence itself.
The Unity of God: Brahman- All this one Tad Ekam, That One
God Is Omniscient: Brahman is everywhere; there is no place He/It/THAT exits - relative or absolute
The incorporeality (spiritual, non-material) of God - Brahman/ISvara is of spirit. Finer then the finest. The essence of creation
The eternity of God: Brahman is Infinite without end in time, space, place.
God is the only hearer of prayer: I have no parallel offer for this principle. Yet to one that adores his/her Ishtadevata this is the personal relationship to ones Ishta.
The prophets were inspired by God: The rishi, guru, saint, are exponents of Reality, of truth and is grounded in That.
Moses is the supreme profit: Perhaps in Santana Dharma we can call out Adi Shankara, or Sri Chaitanya?
The Penteuch ( penta = 5 + teuch = books) was given entirely to Moses - The 5 books of the Torah - Many know them as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This was thought to be a single document when revealed to Moses by the Lord ' as a he spoke to him face-to-face, as a man speaks to his friend'.This is = to the Vedas as being one in the Krta Yuga; And the Vedas are that if revelation ,that of sruti for the seers or rishidristi , seen by the rishi.
The Torah is immutable: Vedas are immutable and the cornerstone of Satyam Ritam Bharat - the Truth, The Right and the Vast.
God is the dispenser of divine reward and punishment; Isvara via His grace, brings one to Mokhsa; Punishment is a function of Karma, and dispensed via the Grahas
The messiah will come ( This is Jesus queue as part of the core principle of Judaism); In Sanatana dharma this can be the principle of avatar of Visnu. Not just one , but many
The messiah will raise the dead : this is confirmation that Jesus is in fact a messiah. In Sanatana Dharma this would be considered a siddhi. We see this in several Puranas.What I do not see in the list of 13 is Sat-Chit-Ananda references.
I see a beautiful list of 13, yet I do not see the call out of God and Satchitananda. It is my humble opinion this is where Jesus plays a role here. Just as the Upanishads offer the explanation of Brahman, Jesus brings clarity to the personal experience of Ishvara and the native. This is where Satchitananda equivalents is called out or offered via a realized Being, Jesus.

The kingdom of Heaven is within you
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions
The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.Things I find interesting
Many (Christians?) see Jesus on the cross dying… isn't the miracle in his resurrection over death? The twice born - He into the Divine, into the spirit. Any one can die , but how many can be reborn? This is a main teaching of Jesus as I see it, Victory over death, over ignorance, over the material body and into the Spirit. It not about the suffering...

This is the same as I see with Natraj… As He dances one foot is stepping on a person, some say this is a baby, and indicates victory over rebirth. A nice correlation between principles . Victory over the death of the body.

Now, many have opinions on this notion… is Jesus and his orientation Advaita or Dvaitya? Jesus said 'I and my father are One'.
There are some Christians that say, this means Jesus is God. Others say he and God are in alignment, and Jesus as Son of Man , is from God, His father, and therefore One.

So there are many views on this and will not debate this notion of Advaita or Dvaitya.
Yet I see this a interesting view on this matter.



1. Reference book: the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions - John Bowler, professor of Religion, University of Lancaster, with 80 contributors from around the world


pranams,

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 01:29 PM
Namaste yajvan

I have enjoyed very much this post of your's. I think in general terms the bridge between the three religions was very well thought.

Explorer
22 March 2010, 09:11 PM
Things I find interesting
Many (Christians?) see Jesus on the cross dying… isn't the miracle in his resurrection over death? The twice born - He into the Divine, into the spirit. Any one can die , but how many can be reborn? This is a main teaching of Jesus as I see it, Victory over death, over ignorance, over the material body and into the Spirit. It not about the suffering...

Great observation, I never noticed this before:

If Jesus' example is one of resurrection and overcoming death, why would anyone keep an image of him as he's dying on the cross - as the main symbol of the religion ? :)

I know logical arguments can be found, that it's to remind the Christian of his sacrifice for them and so on, but come on, shouldn't people focus on the desirable state (enlightenment, overcoming, after or during the resurrection) rather than the painful bloody moments before ?

I find this to be masochistic, poorly inspired, needless focus on pain and suffering, and will add it to the list of things that I find funny and peculiar about Christianity :D

sanjaya
23 March 2010, 12:30 AM
Great observation, I never noticed this before:

If Jesus' example is one of resurrection and overcoming death, why would anyone keep an image of him as he's dying on the cross - as the main symbol of the religion ? :)

I know logical arguments can be found, that it's to remind the Christian of his sacrifice for them and so on, but come on, shouldn't people focus on the desirable state (enlightenment, overcoming, after or during the resurrection) rather than the painful bloody moments before ?

I find this to be masochistic, poorly inspired, needless focus on pain and suffering, and will add it to the list of things that I find funny and peculiar about Christianity :D

Actually, the Protestant cross is usually displayed without the crucified Christ, specifically to indicate that Christ has risen. This is especially true in the evangelical faith. You would think that the emphasis on Christ's death is masochistic and needless, while the emphasis on the resurrection of Christ is positive. However, let's judge the belief by its fruits. Catholics tend to be more interested in charity and doing good deeds. Evangelicals, on the other hand, practice missionary work and cultural annihilation (some Catholics do this too, but in much smaller proportions), they litter India with their poison, they regard Hinduism as idolatry, and here in America they think the only thing God cares about is that we vote Republican. Let's judge beliefs by their results rather than by endless philosophical arguments as to possible consequences of the beliefs. I'm not saying the Catholic Church is perfect, especially with the sex abuse scandals that have been coming out in the past few weeks. But evangelicals are responsible for far more conversions of Hindus than Catholics. I'll take the Catholics and their crucifix over the Protestants and their empty cross any day.

ScottMalaysia
23 March 2010, 05:41 AM
Many (Christians?) see Jesus on the cross dying… isn't the miracle in his resurrection over death? The twice born - He into the Divine, into the spirit. Any one can die , but how many can be reborn? This is a main teaching of Jesus as I see it, Victory over death, over ignorance, over the material body and into the Spirit. It not about the suffering...Since I am a former Christian (Catholic), I'll attempt to explain. This is the basic message that your average missionary will shove down your throat.

God is holy, and therefore perfect. However, we are not perfect. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" says the Bible (Romans 3:23). Every one of us has told a lie, taken something that wasn't ours (even a pen or a piece of paper). Therefore, we are all sinners. The Bible states "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). Therefore, we all deserve to die for our sins. Nothing impure or imperfect will get into heaven. The only other place is hell, so if we die in our sins, we will go to hell.

However, God loves us - He is our loving Father. Therefore, He sent Jesus, His Son, to earth. Jesus lived a perfect life - He never committed a single sin. He, however, allowed Himself to be brutally crucified on our behalf. He accepted death on the Cross so that we would be forgiven our sins. We deserve to die for our sins, but Jesus took our place and died instead of us. When He died, He paid the penalty for our sins, and when He rose again on the third day, He conquered death and enabled mankind to have everlasting life. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that all who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

However, knowing this isn't enough. One has to personally make the decision to receive Jesus Christ into their life as their personal Saviour. This is done through prayer.

(here will follow a typical Protestant prayer for receiving Jesus as one's personal Saviour)


So the emphasis given to Jesus' death on the Cross is that through His death mankind is forgiven their sins, according to Christian teachings. That is the reason that Catholics place so much emphasis on crucifixes and remembering Christ's painful suffering through devotions such as the Stations of the Cross. It is because Jesus died in their place, and through his death their sins are forgiven. However, Christians don't believe that all people will be forgiven through Christ's death - only those who believe in Jesus and follow Him (i.e. Christians) will be forgiven.

Jesus Himself didn't specifically state this teaching - the closest he came was when He said "For even the Son of Man [Jesus] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


Actually, the Protestant cross is usually displayed without the crucified Christ, specifically to indicate that Christ has risen. This is especially true in the evangelical faith. You would think that the emphasis on Christ's death is masochistic and needless, while the emphasis on the resurrection of Christ is positive. Protestants do tend to use plain Crosses, because Christ is Risen and that is what they focus on. Catholics, however, tend to focus more on the suffering of Christ, since it is through that suffering that they belive they are forgiven. Possibly another reason that Protestants adopted plain Crosses is that Catholics had crucifixes and Protestants didn't like Catholicism or anything associated with it.


However, let's judge the belief by its fruits. Catholics tend to be more interested in charity and doing good deeds.This is because Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation. The Bible states that "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?...For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:24,26).

Protestants, however, believe that they are saved by "faith alone" (faith here meaning faith in Jesus' death on the Cross). They base ther believe on Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory"


Evangelicals, on the other hand, practice missionary work and cultural annihilation (some Catholics do this too, but in much smaller proportions), they litter India with their poison, they regard Hinduism as idolatry, and here in America they think the only thing God cares about is that we vote Republican. Let's judge beliefs by their results rather than by endless philosophical arguments as to possible consequences of the beliefs. Catholics used to practice missionary work much more. St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552) was responsible for converting many Hindus to Catholicism. This was in the days before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The Council paved the way for introducing ecumenism, trying to find common ground between the Catholic religion and other world religions. For example, before Vatican II, Protestants were condemned as "heretics". Now the Catholic Church calls them "separated brethren". Our Lady of Medjugorje, a supposed apparition of the Virgin Mary, told the teenagers that she appears to that people of all religions are accepted by Jesus. Catholics in many cases are now far more accepting of other religions (however they are very against those who practice the Catholic faith as it was before Vatican II and want to attend the old Mass rather than the new.)

On the other hand, Evangelicals and Baptists have had no such reforms, and continue to believe that the only way to heaven is Jesus. They go out and preach Christianity because they truly wish to save those peoples' souls from eternal damnation in hell (the punishment for not beliving in Jesus or Christianity). I see it as a driver warning fellow drivers that a landslide has destroyed part of the road just after a bend, and they are in danger of driving off the road to their deaths. Christians honestly believe that a person needs to believe in Jesus to be saved.


I'm not saying the Catholic Church is perfect, especially with the sex abuse scandals that have been coming out in the past few weeks. But evangelicals are responsible for far more conversions of Hindus than Catholics. I'll take the Catholics and their crucifix over the Protestants and their empty cross any day.The sex abuse scandals in the Church have been going on for a long time. A Traditional Catholic friend of mine belives that it happened because the Church allowed homosexual men to enter the priesthood. Prior to Vatican II, men of homosexual orientation were not allowed to become priests. However, my friend is EXTREMELY anti-homosexual, calling gay couples "the lovers of Sodom and Gomorrah".

The Catholics are closer to the original Christian religion than the Protestants. The Eastern Orthodox, who split with the Catholics in 1054, are the closest to the original Christian religion (although perhaps not the actual teachings of Christ). Eastern Orthodox Christians repeat the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner". They have a prayer rope with knots on it to count the repetions, like a Hindu japa mala. Orthodox also emphasise the importance of the individual Christian accepting a "spiritual father", a priest who will guide them on their spiritual journey.

I'd take the Orthodox over the Catholics any day. They are far more tolerant and practice missionary work the least. Plus their churches are really beautiful. Here (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/iIWiAh-cDwWKwBYhv0zQAQ?feat=directlink) is a photo of the local Greek Orthodox cathedral that I took when we went to the Greek food festival.

Explorer
23 March 2010, 06:58 PM
Personally the more I read about Christianity, the more I feel it's like Scientology: It has nothing whatsoever to do with what's actually out there, or afterlife, or anything of the sort. Like a government agency that's grown too fat in bureaucracy, for quite some years now, Christianity just does its own thing, no relation to the outside world.

Am I the only one with that impression ? And I do hope nobody gets offended, it's just the personal opinion of a non-Christian :p

Eastern Mind
23 March 2010, 07:14 PM
Personally the more I read about Christianity, the more I feel it's like Scientology: It has nothing whatsoever to do with what's actually out there, or afterlife, or anything of the sort. Like a government agency that's grown too fat in bureaucracy, for quite some years now, Christianity just does its own thing, no relation to the outside world.

Am I the only one with that impression ? And I do hope nobody gets offended, it's just the personal opinion of a non-Christian :p

Vannakkam: I personally don't think Christ existed, period, and that the Bible is some odd diatribe of mixed myths somebody concocted that has more illogic than one could possibly imagine. Still, from the fear chakra, it has its place for some souls, I guess.

Aum Namasivaya

Ashvati
23 March 2010, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to scientology, since christians, especially catholics, do hold major charities and such (I could be wrong about scientology and charity though, so correct me if I am), and christianity does have far more legitimate roots than scientology, but yeah, I do get the impression that christianity has at least lost track of a great deal of Jesus's teachings to the point of spouting falshehood and a false agenda. I personally believe that Jesus may have been an avatar of Vishnu who forgot who he was and didn't advance as far as the other avatars spiritually because he was so far from anything that could remind him or help him along the way. OR, its also possible that if he was an avatar of Vishnu then he was created for the same reason that Buddha supposedly was, but I'm not sure I like that viewpoint, and tend to think Buddha was actually an avatar of Shiva (his philosophy's emphasis on renunciation just feels more Saivite to me) but thats all just personal theory and interpretation.
To me, christianity is good or at least harmless if its being done right, but the thing is so many people are doing it wrong that even a sincere convert or lifelong christian who would otherwise do right can easily be lead down the wrong path.

Eastern Mind
23 March 2010, 07:30 PM
think Buddha was actually an avatar of Shiva (his philosophy's emphasis on renunciation just feels more Saivite to me) but thats all just personal theory and interpretation.


Vannakkam Ashvati: Just so you know, traditionally Saivites don't believe in avatars as a concept. Avatar is a Vaishnava concept, that has had some horizontal transfer going on. Just thought you should know that. Various concepts, because of mixing and mingling, get applied across the board when in reality they are unique to one religion only.

Aum Namasivaya

Ashvati
23 March 2010, 07:37 PM
Yeah, I really don't know as much about saivism as I probably should. That would explain why I've never heard of any avatars of Shiva though.

Eastern Mind
23 March 2010, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I really don't know as much about saivism as I probably should. That would explain why I've never heard of any avatars of Shiva though.

No worries. I don't know as much as I should and I've been one for 32 years officially. The topic is too vast for one lifetime unless you're a hard working nutcase scholar. Hopefully some innate knowledge will carry over to the next life, and I won't have to start all over again from the naive viewpoint I had this one.

Aum Namasivaya

Ashvati
23 March 2010, 10:08 PM
I also kind of like Shaktism, but I have a feeling if I look into that more I'll encounter a lot of books written by western feminists who barely even understand the subject. I understand that the two sects are very similar in philosophy and cosmology.

sanjaya
24 March 2010, 01:04 AM
I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to scientology, since christians, especially catholics, do hold major charities and such (I could be wrong about scientology and charity though, so correct me if I am), and christianity does have far more legitimate roots than scientology, but yeah, I do get the impression that christianity has at least lost track of a great deal of Jesus's teachings to the point of spouting falshehood and a false agenda. I personally believe that Jesus may have been an avatar of Vishnu who forgot who he was and didn't advance as far as the other avatars spiritually because he was so far from anything that could remind him or help him along the way. OR, its also possible that if he was an avatar of Vishnu then he was created for the same reason that Buddha supposedly was, but I'm not sure I like that viewpoint, and tend to think Buddha was actually an avatar of Shiva (his philosophy's emphasis on renunciation just feels more Saivite to me) but thats all just personal theory and interpretation.
To me, christianity is good or at least harmless if its being done right, but the thing is so many people are doing it wrong that even a sincere convert or lifelong christian who would otherwise do right can easily be lead down the wrong path.

I too wouldn't go quite so far as to compare all forms of Christianity to Scientology, although the prosperity preachers would surely fit this bill. That said, I'm not sure that Christianity "done right" is harmless. Here I'm not referring to the original teachings of Jesus, but to whatever has been propagated by his misguided followers. Keep in mind that for as long as there has been a Christianity, there has been controversy. No one seems to agree on just what flavor of Christianity is orthodox, and what is heterodox. Even in the Bible we start to see ripples of division, with Paul and James teaching contradictory views of salvation. These ripples only grew with time. One thing all forms of Christianity have in common, however, is the need for power and domination. Whenever Christianity becomes powerful enough to influence governments, it imposes itself on other religions. Remember also that the command to practice missionary work comes from the Bible. Missionaries are not aberrations. They are doing exactly what Christianity prescribes. And their missionary work results in the destruction of other cultures and religions.

I personally take a practical approach here. I am content to let every person believe whatever he wishes, so long as he does not force it on others. In theory I could accept peaceful missionaries, but missionary work rarely stays peaceful. We can already see the harm that missionaries are doing in India. It's my hope that the government will soon ban all missionaries from coming to India.

Ashvati
24 March 2010, 06:56 AM
Ironically, to me christianity "done right" involves "doing it wrong" by not proselytizing and imposing on others or judging others and working toward the most harmless possible interpretation, simply loving and worshipping god, and trying to do good works. Sorry if there was some confusion about what I meant by doing it right.

NayaSurya
24 March 2010, 07:13 AM
So true, I have a friend from highschool that I thought to be very conservative Christian, she was always sending out messages about Jesus saving souls. One day I finally decided that I could not live with others thinking I was Christian and decided to post about going to the Hindu temple to pray. I knew I would be deleted by friends from school but it was time to stop avoiding it. She deleted me within two days and I thought okay, I lost a friend...but Siva it worth more than every friend.

Then the funniest thing happened about a week later. She added me back, but on a new account. I was very shocked to get a message from her saying that her pastor was on her other face book and ridiculed her in front of their entire church because she was not trying to save my soul. That she was "too kind" to sinners. She suffered greatly because of her friendship with me, but she refused to give it up and she told me that she truly believed there were many ways to reach God, and good people worship many ways. This made her church VERY angry with her, but she refused to change her beliefs.

It warmed my heart so much! Truly some of the worst Christians I know...the ones who delete their account with Pastor on it so that they can keep a Hindu friend! She is truly beloved of God...

When I was a seven year old child I was very very staunch Mormon, family told me there was only Christ, no other option. A young boy on my street was Buddhist and I was his best friend. He invite me to his house where I see the Buddha and incense...and I said...what's this? He told me that he was Buddhist and I said...is that another type of Christianity? I was lucky he wasn't offended:P

I went home and told family about my friend, he wasn't Christian! My Mother forbid me to visit his home because it was devil worship and that my friend would burn in Hell.

This was when an amazing miracle happened. Seeing this good family, earnestly worshipping humble good God...and he would burn in Hell as punishment? They were Good people. That is when the illusion came off from me...the first time I was strong enough to say...my God would never turn away earnest yearning prayfilled good family. I visted him many times...and we remained friends until his family left for overseas assignment.

Christians can become quite infected with tolerance and love...it may make them bad Christians, but it makes them awesome humans!<3

TatTvamAsi
24 March 2010, 02:57 PM
christianity & islam are absolute garbage... the proof is in the followers of each faith and their actions! :D oh.. and I forgot judaism.. that finishes the hatrick of ****... abrahamics.. tsk tsk...

Eastern Mind
24 March 2010, 04:12 PM
Vannakkam NaraSurya:

That is a touching story about your friend. Thank you for sharing it. It really hits them when they are confronted with the heavy irony. On one hand they are told all non-believers are bad, and then they meet this sweet person... that obviously isn't bad. I think common sense takes over for them. I never disclose my religion for that very same reason. The Pastor you mentioned and jis ilk just go ahead and jump to conclusions before getting to know the person at all. I'm glad it worked out the way it did. I read your profile.. mom of 8, and you've found Siva besides. Wow.

Inspiring to hear such stories. I've had similar 'success' stories such as being told I'm a better Christian than any of 'these'.

Aum Namasivaya

Nara
26 March 2010, 10:42 AM
Dear Sanjaya, Greetings!

This morning I heard on the radio a fascinating story about evangelical Christianity (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125165061&ps=cprs). This is about a controversy triggered by a book written by an evangelical Christian, Brian McLaren, that seems to rewrite the very core of Christianity.

What interested me most was a statistic they cited from a survey done by a professor at Notre Dame, David Campbell, that showed that nearly two-thirds of evangelicals under age 35 believe non-Christians can go to heaven. Wouldn't this not fundamentally alter what evangelism is in the next few decades?

If this is true, an erosion of the central reason to proselytize is already well underway.

Cheers!

Eastern Mind
26 March 2010, 10:52 AM
Vannakkam Nara:

From total ignorance, there is no way but up, so it's not surprising. Its the old geezers that are really hard core. At least that has been my experience with this intolerance. I heard a stat the other day that right now in Canada 15&#37; are visible minorities. In 2025 it is supposed to hit 33%. So as the evangelicals start feeling even more outnumbered and more and more temples, Hindu and Buddhist, come up all over, what choice will they have? Our laws are on the side of tolerance here in America.

Aum Namasivaya

sanjaya
26 March 2010, 04:46 PM
Nara, good to see you again!


Dear Sanjaya, Greetings!

This morning I heard on the radio a fascinating story about evangelical Christianity (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125165061&ps=cprs). This is about a controversy triggered by a book written by an evangelical Christian, Brian McLaren, that seems to rewrite the very core of Christianity.

Ah yes, Brian McLaren. I'm actually familiar with this whole controversy.

Within evangelical Christianity, there are two groups that are starting to gain prominence. The first is the New Calvinists. These people hold fiercely to many (but not all) of the doctrines of the sixteenth century reformers. They believe that the Bible is literally true, and are very active in conversions of non-Christians. They have a very well-defined doctrine, and are extremely clear about what they believe and don't believe. However, they are different from the more classical fundamentalists. They don't come to church dressed up in three-piece suits and dresses. In fact you'll find many dressed up in skater or punk rocker attire. The demographic of New Calvinists actually includes quite a few young people.

The other group is the emergent church movement, of which Brian McLaren is a member. The emergers consider themselves to be in dialog with orthodox evagelicals. They believe in asking questions. For example, they'll freely question doctrines like the virgin birth of Christ, the inerrency of the Bible, the need for physical churches (i.e. why don't Christians just meet in peoples' homes?), and other established beliefs. However, don't be fooled. At the end of the day they are evangelicals. It's just that they're so vague, no one is really sure what they believe.

I don't think that emergent Christianity tastes any better than New Calvinism. Both of these groups would be happy to see Hindus convert. It's just that the New Calvinists actually go out and convert people, whereas the emergent people spin their wheels having a discussion with Christians who aren't listening, and end up saying a whole lot of nothing.


What interested me most was a statistic they cited from a survey done by a professor at Notre Dame, David Campbell, that showed that nearly two-thirds of evangelicals under age 35 believe non-Christians can go to heaven. Wouldn't this not fundamentally alter what evangelism is in the next few decades?

It might, but I'm not so sure that it will. The proportion of people who believe in this hell doctrine has (I think) always been small. In the past it was relegated to hardline fundamentalists. However, evangelical Christianity has grown by leaps and bounds by preying on the vulnerable. It appeals to "sinners," such as the promiscuous, heavy drinkers, etc., with promises of salvation. And to be fair, it does help them kick those habits. But I think many of these people are attracted to evangelical Christianity not because of the hell doctrine, but because it gives them a social setting in which to eschew their former bad behavior. So those people may, at some level, be using Christianity to become better people while discarding the harsher doctrines. Evangelical Christianity may also appeal to spiritually-hungry people in the atheistic West. Here in America, most mainline Protestant churches are effectively atheistic. They are so pluralistic that they don't actually say anything at all about God. Christianity is the default religion of most Westerners. Some might find their way into Hinduism or Buddhism, but most will want to continue calling themselves Christians. For them, evangelicalism is the only alternative to mainline Protestantism.

After all, note that most evangelicals are white Americans. I don't mean to say that they are racist (of all my complaints about evangelicals, racism isn't one of them), but you can see that this form of Christianity appeals only to people who have no religious heritage. We Hindus have a 4000+ year old religious history. Why would we need Christianity to find God?

What I think will happen is that evangelicalism will become the new mainline Protestantism, and the fundamentalists will just move on and give themselves a new name.


If this is true, an erosion of the central reason to proselytize is already well underway.

Don't get me wrong, I hope that you are right and that I am not. But I think the West will continue to send missionaries. What India needs to do is stop being so radically pluralistic, and crack down on Christianity. And I'm not suggesting anything totalitarian. Indian Christians should continue to enjoy freedom to practice their religion however they like, and punishment of missionaries shouldn't exceed simple deportation. But we should stop allowing Christians from the West to cross the border. Missionaries these days are learning to be covert. In Saudi Arabia you can get your head cut off for missionary work. So missionaries will take temporary jobs in Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, and then "share Christ" with their coworkers. Perhapps we should make Western visitors sign statements that they won't preach the Christian gospel to anyone. It may not eliminate missionary work completely, but not all Christians are willing to lie for Jesus (though sadly, most are). It might also help to make visa applicants list the church that they attend, so that Indian officials can ascertain that they don't belong to evangelical churches.

Really, banning missionary work would be the best way to stop conversions.

Nara
26 March 2010, 08:23 PM
Dear sanjaya,

Very good analysis, I appreciate it.

I myself feel the evangelicals are the worst kind of fundamentalists around. At least the Wahabees of Saudi Arabia are open about their proclivities, we know exactly where they stand.

What I find really diabolical is the nexus between the evangelicals and the Jewish right-wing. Each views the other with utter contempt, but still uses each other for their own nefarious ends. The right-wing Jews want to use the evangelicals for political advantage and the evangelicals support the right-wing Jewish politics to bring about Armageddon where the Jews they are supporting are supposed to be left behind to suffer eternal damnation :).

All said and done, I am somewhat encouraged by the statistics 2/3rds of the young evangelicals don't subscribe to the the primary motivation for proselytizing, namely saving souls.



....Don't get me wrong, I hope that you are right and that I am not. But I think the West will continue to send missionaries.Yes, I agree, the 2/3rd statistics is about youngsters under 35. The older people among whom the statistic is perhaps the exact opposite will continue to try and harvest souls like the previous pope wanted to do. But I myself think that effective response to these purveyors, in a pluralistic liberal democracy that India is, is to reform Hinduism and move it towards social equality. Even the lowest of the low among Hindus still want to worship in temples and the upper castes are foolishly opposing. The same people then go out and complain about conversions.

Thank you my friend, the very best to you....

Ashvati
26 March 2010, 09:17 PM
I think if Hinduism can be reformed so that missionaries have no upper hand in their professed treatment of dalits for example, then they'll have less to prey on and we won't need such extreme measures as barring christians from entering the country. Personally, I don't think thats the answer at all.

sanjaya
27 March 2010, 04:01 AM
I myself feel the evangelicals are the worst kind of fundamentalists around. At least the Wahabees of Saudi Arabia are open about their proclivities, we know exactly where they stand.

I tend to agree. Wahabis can be fought off, if only in a limited sense, with guns and economics. But how do you fight an idea?


What I find really diabolical is the nexus between the evangelicals and the Jewish right-wing. Each views the other with utter contempt, but still uses each other for their own nefarious ends. The right-wing Jews want to use the evangelicals for political advantage and the evangelicals support the right-wing Jewish politics to bring about Armageddon where the Jews they are supporting are supposed to be left behind to suffer eternal damnation :).

I am so pleased to not be the only one who sees this! Yes, you are absolutely right! The interplay between the Jewish right wing and the evangelicals is almost sickening. Most Jews, who are liberal, are equally disgusted by this behavior and are averse to evangelical Christians. The evangelicals seem to think that Judaism is "Christianity minus Jesus," but fail to recognize that Jesus' own religious faith (and possibly Jesus himself) rejects almost the whole of Christian doctrine. I understand all of the doctrine. But at a deeper level, I'll never understand why evangelicals are obsessed with Jews.


Yes, I agree, the 2/3rd statistics is about youngsters under 35. The older people among whom the statistic is perhaps the exact opposite will continue to try and harvest souls like the previous pope wanted to do. But I myself think that effective response to these purveyors, in a pluralistic liberal democracy that India is, is to reform Hinduism and move it towards social equality. Even the lowest of the low among Hindus still want to worship in temples and the upper castes are foolishly opposing. The same people then go out and complain about conversions.

Well, in this sense we Hindus aren't the brightest bunch. We're the source of many of our own problems.

Anyway, hope to hear from you more often!


I think if Hinduism can be reformed so that missionaries have no upper hand in their professed treatment of dalits for example, then they'll have less to prey on and we won't need such extreme measures as barring christians from entering the country. Personally, I don't think thats the answer at all.

Perhaps I am just being paranoid after all. You're more generous than me, my friend.

yajvan
30 March 2010, 08:23 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

namasté Explorer



Great observation, I never noticed this before:

If Jesus' example is one of resurrection and overcoming death, why would anyone keep an image of him as he's dying on the cross - as the main symbol of the religion ? :)

For many, the profound truth of overcoming death is perhaps difficult to comprehend. Yet death is very straight forward and therefore a person on a cross is easy to see.

It also suggests (to me) that Jesus' message is lost and not understood, or not taught robustly. Yet this occurs often when long periods of time take over.


praṇām

Ashvati
31 March 2010, 11:15 AM
I think the emphasis on Christ dying for humanity's sins is one of the problems with the religion. It puts too much focus on an aspect of the faith that can't really be applied in a practical way aside from thanking him, and is far too easily and commonly used as a source of guilt. Christians need to put more emphasis depictions and recitations of the sermon on the mount, and be more focused on how he lived and taught, not how and why he died.

sanjaya
31 March 2010, 03:02 PM
I think the emphasis on Christ dying for humanity's sins is one of the problems with the religion. It puts too much focus on an aspect of the faith that can't really be applied in a practical way aside from thanking him, and is far too easily and commonly used as a source of guilt. Christians need to put more emphasis depictions and recitations of the sermon on the mount, and be more focused on how he lived and taught, not how and why he died.

Agreed completely. Evangelicals seem to believe strongly that the most important point of their faith is "the person and work of Christ." By the work of Christ, they mean his atoning death. Thus the death of Christ and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement play a central role. But what does that mean? When you dig deep enough, it's all a bunch of empty theologizing about how your sins have been taken away when you believe in this peculiar doctrine. Christians still sin, so this has no correspondance to reality.

In the gospels, Jesus taught many good principles which, if obeyed, would really make the world a much better place. But evangelicals brush all this aside and concern themselves only with his death and resurrection. I guess it's much easier to bloviate on sola fide and make excuses about why Jesus was speaking figuatively when he said to give all of your money away to the poor. But of course, the hell doctrine is literal.

ScottMalaysia
01 April 2010, 07:44 AM
Agreed completely. Evangelicals seem to believe strongly that the most important point of their faith is "the person and work of Christ." By the work of Christ, they mean his atoning death. Thus the death of Christ and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement play a central role. But what does that mean? When you dig deep enough, it's all a bunch of empty theologizing about how your sins have been taken away when you believe in this peculiar doctrine. Christians still sin, so this has no correspondance to reality.

Yes, Christians still sin. And they admit that. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8). The whole point about Christianity is that they believe that Jesus' death allowed their sins to be forgiven. When a person accepts Jesus as their personal saviour (in Protestant theology) or is baptised (Catholic and Orthodox theology), their sins are forgiven. Without this, they would still be judged for those sins. Once a person has accepted Jesus or been baptized (or both), they will still sin. it is impossible (they believe) for a person to live a sinless life in this world. However, they have to confess their sins - either directly to God in prayer (Protestant) or through a priest whom God uses as His instrument to absolve the sinner(Catholic and Orthodox). Only with sincere contrition and a desire not to commit the sin again will God forgive the sinner. However, the forgivness is possible because of Jesus' dying on the Cross. An unbaptized person who has not accepted Jesus cannot have their sins forgiven (the Christians believe).


In the gospels, Jesus taught many good principles which, if obeyed, would really make the world a much better place. But evangelicals brush all this aside and concern themselves only with his death and resurrection. I guess it's much easier to bloviate on sola fide and make excuses about why Jesus was speaking figuatively when he said to give all of your money away to the poor. But of course, the hell doctrine is literal.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures should always be interpreted literally unless a figurative meaning is clearly intended (e.g. when Jesus said "I am the door", we don't interpret this as meaning Jesus is made of wood). This has led a minority of Catholics to espouse the geocentric viewpoint (the sun revolves around the earth) because this is what a literal interpretation would lead to. They do, however, believe that Jesus was talking literally when He said "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood" at the Last Supper - they believe that the bread and wine consecrated at Mass truly become Christ's Body and Blood. Interestingly, there have been instances where the consecrated bread has started to bleed.

Evangelicals tend to focus on Jesus' death and resurrection, but they also consider His teachings to be applicable in their lives. I remember a Baptist pastor giving a sermon on the verse "Judge not, that you may not be judged" (Matthew 7:1), and I don't remember him emphasising Christ's death and resurrection then.


Christians need to put more emphasis depictions and recitations of the sermon on the mount, and be more focused on how he lived and taught, not how and why he died.

Ah, but it's how He died that allows their sins to be forgiven.