Is Christianity a Negative Religion?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

well, for a start i'd do a search on CR for the words "ma'aseh bereishit". i've posted on this a number of times - here's a good place to look:

Garden of Eden

Genesis, the creation story



well, i'd say the world isn't right and that is the task of humans, to put it right. it's called "tiqqun" (or tikkun if you like), "repair". we would argue that the edenic state is not really a human state as we would understand it and that the greatest transformation we can hope for is the onset of the messianic age - but it is our task to bring that to fruition, not to hope for someone else to sort it out for us. we're not expecting humans to be substantially different in any way that can't be achieved personally through correct living by Torah and worship of G!D. we just don't see it as quite so awful as those who believe in original sin - because we don't really believe it was a sin in the same way that humans can sin nowadays. what it was was the beginning of the *possibility* of sin - but also the beginning of the possibility of *repentance*; the beginning of choice, for which the necessary concomitant was human free-will, the knowledge of good and evil in order to choose freely to do one or the other.

b'shalom

bananabrain

This thread also brought to mind for me the idea of tikkun olam (sp?), the idea of healing the world. I just learned of this phrase a few months ago at another interfaith discussion place and it resonated very strongly with me and how I interpret the Christian message of reconciliation of the world. To me the 'fall' represents the 'brokenness' we see evident in the world, in our lives, in our relationships (with God and each other) and we have an obligation to work toward healing of this brokenness, with God's help. So for me, to 'spread the message/Gospel of Christ' does not mean to teach people Christianity and try to convert them, but simply to be Christ-like in the world, extending love and forgiveness, charity, where I can.

2 c,
luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Luna,

I am not ending the discussion. I am only commending you for your openness to have this discussion.

It does seem we have covered the topic of Original Sin thoroughly, although I am willing to hear any more bservations and questions you may have. There are also other topics I have already recommended.

I'm willing to discuss the other things you highlighted (though I'll have to go back to remember what they were...). I was kind of hoping others would join in for the various topics...so it's not just me responding through my own bias.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Andrew,

Gandhi's quote,

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

is very profound.

To this one I previously wrote a reply and deleted it.

First, I agree with the sentiment that its often how Christians behave that gives Christianity a negative image. Like all other humans, we often behave quite badly. Plus, Gandhi is one of my heros and role models. But I erased the reply the first time because as much as I like this quote and Gandhi, it also reminds me that this is the difference between Christ and we fallible humans: Christ likes (loves) us anyway.

Reminds me of a story. An artist is having a meal in a bar and a waitress with a huge tray of dirty dishes trips and crashes her tray into a newly painted wall. The patrons of the bar look at the wall, tut tut, such a shame that was a beautiful clean wall and now its a mess. But the artist takes out his paint box, and with a few strokes here and there transforms the mess into a glorious work of art. And that is how God sees us and our 'mess,' not as something ugly, but something beautiful and capable of transformation.

I deleted this because I know the arrogance and fallibility of (some not all I hope) Christians, and I know that people have been deeply wounded by this. I do not want to seem to write off the pain that has been caused by cruelty in the name of Christ. You mentioned in one of your posts how you have helped several former Christians get over their fear, in which I also read between the lines that you are helping to heal the wounds they rec'd in the name of Christianity. I think that that is a wonderful ministry you are doing, even though it makes me sad that it is necessary.

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Reminds me of a story. An artist is having a meal in a bar and a waitress with a huge tray of dirty dishes trips and crashes her tray into a newly painted wall. The patrons of the bar look at the wall, tut tut, such a shame that was a beautiful clean wall and now its a mess. But the artist takes out his paint box, and with a few strokes here and there transforms the mess into a glorious work of art. And that is how God sees us and our 'mess,' not as something ugly, but something beautiful and capable of transformation.

I like that story... another bumper sticker I see around town is "Jesus, Save me from your followers" That one unfortunately has a ring of truth as well. And while I can see how others can see Christianity as a negative religion...I sure don't see it as so.

I'm as happy as a kid with a pile of leaves....

[earl]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

This thread also brought to mind for me the idea of tikkun olam (sp?), the idea of healing the world. I just learned of this phrase a few months ago at another interfaith discussion place and it resonated very strongly with me and how I interpret the Christian message of reconciliation of the world. To me the 'fall' represents the 'brokenness' we see evident in the world, in our lives, in our relationships (with God and each other) and we have an obligation to work toward healing of this brokenness, with God's help. So for me, to 'spread the message/Gospel of Christ' does not mean to teach people Christianity and try to convert them, but simply to be Christ-like in the world, extending love and forgiveness, charity, where I can.

2 c,
luna

Well Luna, wasn't it St. Francis that said to preach the Gospel always using words only when you have to? BB can set us/me straight but I'd read recently (in a very good book I'm still reading I highly recommend, "Prayer : a History" by the 2 Zelenski's-covers the many manifestations of prayer in all traditions) that tikkun olam originally was related to a somewhat esoteric notion that "sparks of the divine" hidden within matter could be "released" to rejoin The Divine. Metaphorically, I think we do indeed reveal the hidden sparks of God when we act in such a way. take care all, earl

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by earl

Well Luna, wasn't it St. Francis that said to preach the Gospel always using words only when you have to? BB can set us/me straight but I'd read recently (in a very good book I'm still reading I highly recommend, "Prayer : a History" by the 2 Zelenski's-covers the many manifestations of prayer in all traditions) that tikkun olam originally was related to a somewhat esoteric notion that "sparks of the divine" hidden within matter could be "released" to rejoin The Divine. Metaphorically, I think we do indeed reveal the hidden sparks of God when we act in such a way. take care all, earl

Yup that's exactly what I had in mind when I was writing that...was also recently reminded of that quote (underlined) by a certain mutual UU friend...

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

I like that story... another bumper sticker I see around town is "Jesus, Save me from your followers" That one unfortunately has a ring of truth as well. And while I can see how others can see Christianity as a negative religion...I sure don't see it as so.

I'm as happy as a kid with a pile of leaves....

Hee hee, like you I am also easily entertained...

[Nick the Pilot]

Luna,

You said,

"...I agree with the sentiment that its often how Christians behave that gives Christianity a negative image."

--> I would add the idea they are also creating bad karma, which they will have to burn off at a later time. Many Christians think anything they can do anything hurtful in the name of Christ, and it automatically absolves them. (I disagree.) I think they are in for a surprise.

As a matter of fact, I heard from a psychic person about the afterlife predicament of Mr. Atta, one of the September 11 highjackers. He really believed he would go to Heaven for what he did. The actual events at his Judgement (according to the psychic) played out differently. The sad thing is, he never saw it coming.

"...Gandhi is one of my heros and role models."

--> Gandhi is the name that comes to my mind when I think of the greatest people that have ever lived. As a matter of fact, he is the example I always use when I discuss one of the other Christian dogmas that chased me away from Christianity.

"God sees us and our 'mess,' not as something ugly, but something beautiful and capable of transformation."

--> I totally agree. This is why I cannot reconcile this idea with the story of Adam and Eve, Psalms 51:5, and Romans 3:23.

"I do not want to seem to write off the pain that has been caused by cruelty in the name of Christ."

--> You are wise beyond your years.

"You mentioned in one of your posts how you have helped several former Christians get over their fear, in which I also read between the lines that you are helping to heal the wounds they rec'd in the name of Christianity."

--> Correct. I still do.

"I think that that is a wonderful ministry you are doing..."

--> Thank you. Although it is painful at times, it is deeply rewarding.

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

You said,

"...sparks of the divine" hidden within matter could be 'released' to rejoin The Divine."

--> I was stunned to read your post. You have described part of the Theosophical version of the Creation Story.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

... for me, to 'spread the message/Gospel of Christ' does not mean to teach people Christianity and try to convert them, but simply to be Christ-like in the world, extending love and forgiveness, charity, where I can.

Call me narrow, luna (I don't mind), but imho, this is not only the greatest way we can spread the message and share the Gospel, I've come to believe it is just about the only way.

I do think that polite, friendly discussions (as these), and even much of the so-called "missionary work" that Christians do ... also helps, but where there is the slightest failure to recognize that the indigenous peoples of all countries have their own spirituality and religious paths, Christians err. It gives me a sour stomach to imagine what damage has been done, time and time again, in scenarios such as these, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it is not what Christ would have wanted.

It just goes to show that there are many different ways to interpret or understand our purpose, both as Christians, and as human beings. As I see it, self-righteousness and Christianity - are like oil and water ... and these two can never mix.

I ponder something like inner-city violence, or the poverty in a place like Haiti, and I think to myself - where spirituality (or religion) is clearly missing, and where Christians therefore bring something which was hitherto absent ... that is not the same as missionizing, or quite the same as prosyletism, and therefore it would be in line with sharing the Gospel ... as you mentioned above. But then, these things are not always thought through, and for whatever reason, even the best-intentioned of people do go about this trying to mix oil, with water.

Namaskar,

~andrew

[AndrewX]

The story, btw, is beautiful, luna ... and I think it demonstrates wonderfully how God seeks to work with us and through us, in and for the benefit of the world.

[Thomas]

There is a story of St Francis (the setting is largely my own) that is fitting here.

In his later years, the Holy Man was attended by a single brother, Br. Leo. (St Francis had a habit of levitating whilst deep in prayer, which would cause a commotion and upset the fragile peace of the community. Francis swore Leo to secrecy.) It happened that the saintly man was invited to Rome, the Pope had need of discussion with him. Francis set off with Leo, and the papal attendants.

After a stop along the way, as the party were readying to depart, Francis noticed, "where's Leo?" And the cry went up. High and low, the brother could not be found, and when the delay was evident, and the party clueless, Francis said, "I know where he will be."

They travelled to a childrens' playground on the edge of the village, and there Leo was found, surrounded by children, playing on a makeshift swing. The escort was incensed at the cause of the delay, and on so important a mission! But Francis smiled sagely, and observed, "If I had a hundred like him, I could convert the world!"

What the Jews so profoundly understand, and it is a lesson we (Christianity and the West) could do well to learn from them, is that Christianity is a Way, not a wherefore. It is a Way of Infinite Love, not a morality deduced from an Infallible Logic (which remains a Mystery and, without the Way, unfathomable), something you do first, and preach when asked ... preaching is then there to explain why you do what you do.

That's why Jesus said "I am the Way," before he said, "the Truth and the Life."

The Life follows when living in the Truth, and the Truth when living in the Way, it is Revealed when you do it, because you are doing a Godly Thing, because the Way is loving one's neighbour, as an apocryphal saying of the fathers has it, There is your neighbour, there is your God.

Immanently, we find the real meaning of God in the love of neighbour.
('Meaning' is synonymous with 'presence', the presence of a thing is its act of existing – God is act – God is Unconstrained, He cannot but be what He is because there is nothing that can restrain Him from being what He is ... God is "I am that I am" absolutely and without condition.

God is a Verb, not a Noun, and moreover God is a transitive verb and thus a Trinity (into deep stuff here ... but there's more ...)

Transcendentally, we find the real meaning of neighbour in the love of God.
('Transitive' – Grammar: Expressing an action carried from the subject to the object; requiring a direct object to complete meaning. Logic & Mathematics: Of or relating to a relationship between three elements such that if the relationship holds between the first and second elements and between the second and third elements, it necessarily holds between the first and third elements.

There can be no 'neighbour' in practice (man) if it is not there in principle (God).

If not in God, the the principle of neighbour is an invention and a fantasy and as such contra the the Divine Will (for God wills only what He is) and then 'privation' or 'alone-ness' becomes a good. Such an idea stands utterly against the Word of every Sacred Tradition, every metaphysical doctrine, since the dawn of time. A man would be mad to entertain it.

If it were true, then nothing exists in relation to anything else, nothing would hold the world together, gravity (still the most mysterious of forces) would not exist ... and the world would fall apart to less than atoms, less than energy ... an empty void ... it would not exist ... it would be sin, privation, alone-ness, realised to the Nth degree ...

To continue ...

For the Principle of Neighbour to exist in God (the principle of 'self and other') then God will actualise it, will be it, in Himself.

He will be both Self, and Other, in Himself, but the two are the same because the One gives Himself fully and without reserve to the Other, and the Other gives Himself fully and without reserve back to the One, but what the Other gives back is all that He is, which was given Him by the One.

But wait a minute, we have 'one' (one), and 'other' (two) ... but this then is a duality, and to say that the third is what exists between them, because of them, is an error (which the Greeks read in their translation of the Latin 'filioque') because it implies three proceeds from two ...

But wait another minute, the 'one' and the 'other' do not necessitate nor prove a relation between them, only that two things exist, they do not have to relate directly ... they do not have to communicate ...

... So three cannot be the Principle of Relation a fortiori because of the existence of 'one' and 'two'; three must therefore be the Principle of Relation a priori in One and simultaneously in Other.

So if the Principle of Relation, of Neighbour, must be in God and proceed from God, contemporaneously with its being in and proceeding from, the Other ... so Two and Three proceed from One, not just Two, and One is wholly and entirely and indivisibly in Two, and in Three, whilst wholly and entirely Itself as One.

So Three stands in equal status with One and Two, and each One (three of them now) will be Other to the other two, whilst simultaneously wholly and entirely and indivisibly in and of the other two, in no less a measure than wholly and entirely and indivisibly in and of Itself.

God the Father is what He is. He is what He is.
God the Son knows what He is. He is what he knows.
God the Holy Spirit wills what He is. He is what He wills.

There is no distinction between what God is, what God knows, and what God wills ... so there is no distinction between Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

All that He is, all that He knows, all that He wills, is Love.
And that is all that He is, all that He knows, and all that He wills.
Nothing else.

In Love, there is no distinction between you and your neighbour,
In Love, there is no distinction between you and God.

All are one, and all in all.

Good grief ... carried away ... the Trinity, the filioque, and the metaphysics of being and relation?

What was the topic again?

Thomas

[Prober]

Thank you Luna for a wonderful thread!

I've been reading your (y'all's) responses and enjoying the thread and haven't found time to comment.

I find it interesting that Jesus "draws (negative) all men" to himself and tells us to "go (positive) into all the world" to spread the gospel. Maybe Christianity is negative and positive in that sense.

And, Yes, I agree that the best way to witness is to be more Christ-like.

So much more on which to comment. This thread just kept getting longer and I enjoyed reading it so much that I forgot to comment!

Regards,
Mark

[earl]

As always, Thomas, wonderful stuff you contribute. Influenced as I am by Buddhism with its emphasis on process and "de-thingifying" things, God as verb always had an appeal for me. Interesting story re Bro. Leo. Acutally one of my favorite Buddhist icons, ironically, is a supposed Chan master of old, Ho-tai or Pu-tai, (usually the cheesy statue you see in most Chinese restaurants is of him ), who in his enlightenment was usually portrayed as happily wandering homeless and materially poor carrying a sack of endless gifts to hand out to the children with whom he constantly played, not a care in the world. Perhaps the outward manifestation of the God-infused and the Buddha-enlightened is not so very different. take care ,earl

[InLove]

Oh, thank you, Thomas! I have thought about the concept of The Trinity in many ways, but never in this one that has been right in front of me all the time. You'd think that my time spent in the English department tutoring folks from all over the world, especially in the area of grammar, would have led me to this particular insight. What an interesting idea to take with me now...I am tempted to ring up one of the administrators to whom I was assigned and present this idea to him. I think it would be a "light bulb" moment for him, not in the area of The Trinity (he understands that), but in the area of language.

And I appreciate that story about Leo, as well. It was probably here in CR where I first read it, but I had forgotten about it.

I am so grateful for the many wonderful and thought-provoking posts I am finding on this thread. Thanks, lunamoth.

InPeace,
InLove