Marsh
Disagreeable By Nature
Wil, I suggest re-reading the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Christianity without resurrection?
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Dream said:
In the first place, Jesus was not a disciple of John the Baptist. He only got baptized by John to fulfill His calling.
In the second place, my point is that the things Jesus said went beyond what a mere teacher would say. How many rabbis of that time said such things as Jesus did? The Gospels are clear that Jesus is the Savior of the World. You need only to go to the Nativity story to gleen that. "And the angel said unto them, fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." - Luke 2:10-11
How pecular that this man Jesus is proclaimed by an angel to be the Savior. What do we read in Isaiah?
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." - Isaiah 43:11
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8
So the dilemma for anyone who believes in Christ is to reconcile what God has said before with what we know about Jesus. So He cannot just be a mere teacher or prophet or brother or example, even. Not saying that He not these things, but there is something more.
path of one said:
I appreciate the concern about the overblowing the end of the world and the focus on the afterlife. The fact is, our development as Christians is geared toward what Jesus called the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. His parables are replete with comparisions (The kingdom of heaven is like...) and He spoke of being fit for that kingdom. And you are absolutely right that we need to focus on the here and now, for everything we have done and are doing is preparation for that Kingdom.
It is important to realize that Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world, even telling Pilate so just prior to His crucifixion. This world system that we see is not of God. When all is said and done, there will be a Last King to rule the world, but not before He cleans house.
All the teachings of Jesus, centered on those two commandments of Love, will be the rule in the Kingdom of God. And whatever radical changes that are needed that will prepare us will start right in our hearts. The internal change within us (the kingdom of God is within us) will express itself toward the outer, not the other way around. You cannot legislate the human heart. If there is to be any peace in this world, it isn't going to be the result of some man-made peace treaty, but a radical and dynamic change in the heart of mankind. And it is our job as Christians to spread the Good News of how God can change that human heart through Christ.
Why not look forward to a day when the world will be free of pain, suffering, death, and sorrow?
But the world will get with the program or it will perish. Simple as that.
Coming full circle with the resurrection issue, this world will be resurrected into a Kingdom without end. And us right along with it, if we are meet for it.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
For the most part, I agree, Dondi. What I'm trying to say is that many churches I've been to (and many Christians I know) are not focused on the preparation... they're focused on the reward. Hence, they aren't very interested in working on social justice or environmental sustainability, for example. Their idea is that it's all ending soon anyway, or they'll be in heaven soon, so what's the point? Just let Jesus come back to clean everything up, and in the meantime, contribute primarily by criticizing any humanistic or spiritual attempts to alleviate suffering and aid human development, go to church, quote the Bible at people, and pat oneself on the back for one's righteousness.
The danger of having no belief in an afterlife or new earth is that most people are not strong enough to withstand it and still keep hope for bettering the world. They descend into apathy or depression. The danger of emphasizing these beliefs is that most people are not strong enough to withstand it and still work toward change in themselves and their world NOW. They descend into apathy and self-righteousness. Religion becomes the opiate of the people, and without the internal daily individual and communal work of climbing toward perfection, toward being Christ-like and making "talk" into "walk," it all becomes stuff and nonsense without any real meat. People become slaves to the media and anyone leading them around by the nose, saying "here's how you must vote, what you must say, where you must go to church to be a Christian." And in their fear of hell, they follow. It takes courage to just follow the red letters and be in the world, but not of it. Christianity is as much prone to being of the world as anything else, so far as I can see. It is individual dedication that makes it otherwise.
I agree the change will come because of the grace of God. I have had personal visions of this stuff. There is a lot of personal stuff going on that informs my beliefs about the End/Beginning. But... I think it's not the point. It's the seeing Christ in the world and serving Him, and honoring the Christ within us by dedicated change in ourselves and the world that is important. Prophecy is not future-telling. It is warning. Our collective and individual choices matter. Whatever happens, the point is that we shouldn't be sleeping upon His arrival. I think Jesus was very clear that faith is an action verb- it's a "doing" that arises from a "being," neither of which have anything to do with worldly things, including religious institutions, party affiliations, and so forth. Being "not of the world" causes us to act for justice and mercy in the world. We are not of it, but we are called to be in it, to be the grassroots effort that meets God's policy-making from above, so to speak.
The danger of having no belief in an afterlife or new earth is that most people are not strong enough to withstand it and still keep hope for bettering the world. They descend into apathy or depression. The danger of emphasizing these beliefs is that most people are not strong enough to withstand it and still work toward change in themselves and their world NOW. They descend into apathy and self-righteousness. Religion becomes the opiate of the people, and without the internal daily individual and communal work of climbing toward perfection, toward being Christ-like and making "talk" into "walk," it all becomes stuff and nonsense without any real meat. People become slaves to the media and anyone leading them around by the nose, saying "here's how you must vote, what you must say, where you must go to church to be a Christian." And in their fear of hell, they follow. It takes courage to just follow the red letters and be in the world, but not of it. Christianity is as much prone to being of the world as anything else, so far as I can see. It is individual dedication that makes it otherwise.
I agree the change will come because of the grace of God. I have had personal visions of this stuff. There is a lot of personal stuff going on that informs my beliefs about the End/Beginning. But... I think it's not the point. It's the seeing Christ in the world and serving Him, and honoring the Christ within us by dedicated change in ourselves and the world that is important. Prophecy is not future-telling. It is warning. Our collective and individual choices matter. Whatever happens, the point is that we shouldn't be sleeping upon His arrival. I think Jesus was very clear that faith is an action verb- it's a "doing" that arises from a "being," neither of which have anything to do with worldly things, including religious institutions, party affiliations, and so forth. Being "not of the world" causes us to act for justice and mercy in the world. We are not of it, but we are called to be in it, to be the grassroots effort that meets God's policy-making from above, so to speak.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
path said:
Sadly, you're right. It says judgement starts at the house of God. I think people are in for a rude awakening if all they rely on is their 'faith in Christ'. Most efforts are geared toward evangelism in the fundamental churches. But that ought only be a first step toward bringing people into a life in God. Not only teaching and praying for their needs, but providing the very things that will fulfill that need, if possible. Our love show show substance, not just platitude.
I don't have any problems with humanistic efforts to alleiviate suffering. I'm glad there are more charitable organizations to help the poor and needy. We need that more in the world. Nor have I heard much in the way of criticism in that regard, at least not in the churches I've attended. I wouldn't know why there would be.
And as you've said, we need to put some Jewishness into our Christianity. Jews for the most part aren't concerned so much in the afterlife as they are for the life here and now. What was it that Jesus said? "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." - Matthew 6:34
I think there has to be a balance in our forward-thinking and our present condition. Just because there is a biblical reason to think the world will end doesn't mean we should wait around for it to come. That's not what Jesus mean when He said "occupy until I come". We aren't to be apathetic to what we believe is fate. Funny how some Christians hope to hasten the Great Tribulation when we probably could stave it off if we do our jobs right.
Indeed. You've a well-balanced reply. I think you've struck the heart of the issue with, "Prophesy is not future-telling. It is a warning." Most of the doom and gloom will be self-inflected...that which we will bring on ourselves.
And fear of hell should not be a motivator. There is enough hell in this world, which is why we need to try and change it. We need more hope than fear.
Namste Thomas,
from beliefnet Who is a Christian?
So let us ignore the folks that say my denomination/sect only and look at the big numbers 75% and 35% which indicates that 54% of Christians don't fall into what fundamentalists/literalists/evangelicals would call Christian. ie I am a member of the wacky Christian majority.There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`�n). Four examples are:
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters, and this web site define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Thus, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox believers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church members, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. are all considered Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]However, many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define "Christian" more narrowly to include only those persons who have been "born again" regardless of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of belief concerning which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Other denominations regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Different definitions on such a fundamental topic makes dialog and debate among Christian groups very difficult. It also makes estimating the number of Christians in the U.S. quite impossible. By some definitions, 75% of Americans are Christians; by other definitions, it is a small fraction of 1%. [/FONT]
I would also contend yes, Christianity existed for the past 2000 years but in the past 200 years it has been losing ground in nations who are growing in industry, education, wealth and understanding and only gaining ground in countries that are undeveloped or developing. Also in those countries where it is losing ground it is only holding on due to the likes of those the fundiliterelicals don't consider Christian. We are not only the majority, but increasing in percentage.
Not only that but in your own church the number of folks that squirm in their pews because of the standards on divorce, premarital sex, and contraception are increasing and they will continue to squirm out of their pews. But they still believe in Christ. And there are plenty of folks like me and with our increasing capability to read, compare, contrast information and not tethered to just what the catechism or priest tells us, our ability to think for ourselves, more will continue to move to this side of the aisle.
My contention is that if the church continues to hold onto what has been shown to have not happened, to have not occurred and continues to claim infallability (Like the quote from Nixon that is being bantied about lately "If the President does it, it isn't against the law!") the church will go the way of Nixon.
Dream
Well-Known Member
This is not a dilemma. Jeremiah was called 'LORD', since he did things in the name of the LORD. So did all of the prophets, all of the judges, and anyone else who operated in the 'Name of the LORD'. There was something more about all of these people, and of the martyrs it is said "the world was not worthy of them." Jeremiah said he consumed the LORD's word, which was a joy to him, and in that same verse he was called LORD. The two things are related. It ought to remind us of John 1, where we are given power to become sons of God when the word dwells in us.Dondi said:
Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Ephesians 3:14-15 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I couldn't have said it better, Dondi! That's what I'm getting at.
Sure, I'm absorbed in the pursuit of the truth, the *on the ground* factual reality of the life and times of the man we call Jesus, but the simple point that drives everything (and I do mean everything Christian) is the historicity of the resurrection. Without it, Christianity is just a bunch of morality myths. Might as well be Jewish, or Pagan, or Buddhist, or animist, or anything else.
Not that there's anything wrong with other paths...for other people. In my view, if that is where G-d chooses to place somebody, so be it. But He placed me on the path of Christianity, and then gave me a mind to question human authority.
An intellect can find ways to undermine Christianity (or any faith for that matter), it doesn't take much to look around and find some of the arguments (most are not logical even if they are couched in logical terms). If Christianity is *just another* run of the mill religion, how has it managed to survive the ferocious onslaughts of the powers that be (particularly Rome, starting with Nero)? If Christianity is nothing more than a morality mythos, there are plenty of extinct morality mythos around. How did Christianity survive?
It may not be completely logical, but then not all in life is. I have seen enough in my life to confirm the presence of G-d. I have seen enough to be convinced that Jesus (if by an Aramaic name) did exist. Maybe its not logical; but if the resurrection is not true (defined as *real*), then Christianity is nothing special and Jesus isn't anybody in particular.
What third temple are you referring to? Heriod bulit the first temple and Solomon bulit the second if I am not mistaken which I am not. The third has not been bulit. Both were bulit one on top of the other.
Namaste all,
I wonder then why I see Jesus as something special?
Now in a day when prophets seemed to abound, there were plenty in those centuries, folks that were listened to and many made it into the bible.
Of course today despite the quote 'these things and greater will you do' anyone who claims any of that is a crackpot.
Also other than Mohamed and the Bahaula all prophets since have been pretty much ignored. And any modern day prophet is chastised for thinking he has any connection to G!d.
I see Jesus as understanding his Christ self, and attaining it. That is pretty special to me. I don't know if the resurection or the miracles happened or not, but I do know if they didn't it does not detract my belief and understanding of the Jesus written about in the bible. Nor would it cause me to pick up and head off for some other religion.
I see nothing that can pull the carpet out from under me and cause me to doubt my faith. I find it interesting that others so devout do.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,396
- Reaction score
- 602
- Points
- 108
In that case, I am Christian-Baha'i.
Hey Wil, I have another scholar to add to your roster of Christian believers without the resurrection 
D). Your post reminds me of Marcus Borg's experience with Christianity. If you have not read his post on Easter, I think you would like this:
D). Your post reminds me of Marcus Borg's experience with Christianity. If you have not read his post on Easter, I think you would like this:
Dream
Well-Known Member
It was a mistake. I'm not sure why, but the tabernacles don't count as temples. Something about the stones or something. I promise that this probably isn't the only error I've made in my post but also that I have posted as truthfully as I can. "Where words are many transgression is not lacking..."(Pro 10:19)Winner_08 said:
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I find this confusing as well.
While I believe in the resurrection, I don't see that as the main thrust of Christ's teachings, and if it was somehow proven that his bones lie buried somewhere like other people's, it would not shake my faith in Christ whatsoever. Nor would I have to go the route of "God let Satan put these here to test me."
Having experienced Christ spiritually- literally, having had a personal relationship with Him through contemplative prayer for quite some time- my faith is in the Spirit and not in events from 2000 years ago. The story is meaningful, but my faith is from my spiritual journey here and now.
I find it puzzling if, for others, their faith rests on sheer belief in someone else's account of Christ (the Gospels) as opposed to personal experience of Christ in their own lives. It seems that would be difficult and dangerous, and no wonder people would feel threatened by changes in church institution, Biblical interpretation, or variety of religious experience. If one's faith rests on personal relationship to God/Christ, then it is pretty unshakeable. For what can separate us from the Love of God?
I don't think it's wrong to have faith based on something other than a personal relationship with Christ, but I confess I don't fully understand what the point is of religion if one doesn't engage with God personally (aside from its social functions, which are substantial but not working toward transcendence).
I guess what I'm saying is that if I found Christ were not literally resurrected, it affect my faith not one iota. Why? Because I experience the "resurrected" Christ all the time in meditation and prayer. Christ comforts me, speaks to me, walks with me. So what do I care about the literality of it all? What, really, is space and time and matter and history compared to my personal journey with Christ? But if my entire faith were based on the literality of it and not my own personal experience of Him, then it would seem to me that I'd be rather vulnerable.
It's something I've noticed over the years. Many of my (once) highly fundamentalist friends became atheists. No one that was of the mystical and/or liberal bent did, because we never saw God within a box to begin with, so dissonance was always seen as working toward growth rather than as a threat. We never saw our faith as belonging to an institution or necessitating non-change in our beliefs, but rather as a constancy of relationship between God and "self," and so all change was growth rather than the either/or approach. I don't know... just my ponderings...
bob x
Well-Known Member
Yes you are, badly mistaken. SOLOMON built the FIRST Temple, and Zerubbabel built the Second. Herod greatly refurbished the Second Temple, basically replacing the old building; his construction could be called the "third" temple, although it usually isn't.
it would shake my faith.. because I base my faith on the word of God. If Jesus died and wasnt resurrected that would mean that the was a bible lie Jesus was a lie and I would not know what to believe.
But its ok because the bible wasnt a lie and Jesus is alive.
But its ok because the bible wasnt a lie and Jesus is alive.
Namaste FS,
I guess that is just it. I don't believe the bible is a lie since the earth is older than 10,000 years, or that Adam and Eve and the garden are allegory. I also don't fault folks for getting excited about the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ and embellishing if that is what happened.
None of that changes my faith in the spirit we refer to as G!d. Nor do I lose anything because the writers can't agree on when the curtain tore. Today we know how unreliable eyewitnesses are and we also are completely aware of what would happen when stories are told and retold.
To me the blessing is that we are now in an age and time where we can openly discuss our beliefs and we won't be burned at the stake or tied to the rack. It is a blessing that the bible maybe set free.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but if in the process of attaining "Christ self" Jesus did not work the miracles attributed to him or resurrect, it just seems to me counter-intuitive. Kinda like believing an experienced plumber can fix a leak, only to find out its just been a bunch of talk and he can't actually fix anything. So what if Jesus talked to us about how to improve ourselves if he couldn't *really* improve himself?
Fair enough, but the resurrection is a crucial tie in to the Old Testament prophecies...particularly Isaiah. For the typical Christian, the resurrection is a crucial point of validation of the rest of the Bible promises.
Would you agree that in the body of believers not all can be the head, and not all can be the heart, and not all can be the hand?
I can accept that no two people are going to have the same subjective experience, even if faced with the same encounter. Not everyone sees ghosts / spirits / phantoms, let alone communicates with them. So its not difficlut for me to understand that for some people all they have is someone else's account of Christ.
One point I do think worth mentioning at this point is the value people put on other people's interpretation of someone else's account of Christ. I suppose it is difficult to avoid, but that is where I see a lot of discrepency...people trusting other people to do their homework for them, and then wondering why they get a failing grade?
I agree, but I see all around me people absorbed in day to day life, for whom religion and matters of spirit are superfluous and ancillary, almost residual appendages, to be suffered by rote and superstitious repetition.
I'm happy for you that your way works for you, and I am being most sincere. For me there's a glaring contradiction that doesn't work for me...I can't believe in something as truth if it is not real. I just can't. It is the same as believing a lie. And since I do not commune with spirit in anything approaching the same sense as I can and do with people here, I am left to great degree to figure things out for myself...chiefly because I will not let anybody else do *my* homework for me.
Don't get me wrong; spirit speaks to me, but on its terms. I do not actively provoke spirit, and I am ignorant enough (and content to be so) that I still respect spirit like a third rail on a subway.
I know whereof you speak regarding some of the failings of fundamentalism, but I believe it is as much from misguided teachings of mistaken shepherds. Case in point being the discussion I had a while back with someone over *good* works. If a believer takes to heart the realization that nothing they ever do is ever going to be good enough, they reach a point of apathy and a sense of "why bother?" I have seen instance of "if I can't win and I'm going to hell anyway, I might as well behave like it." Teachings out there are leading some people to such dire conclusions...in part because the lessons of forgiveness, including forgiveness of self, are being bypassed and overlooked.
I'm sure there are other reasons to renounce faith too; realization of the political atrocities committed in the name of G-d, paedophilic rape, blatant hypocracy, social contradiction with moral ideation, and other reasons that escape me just now.
But not all of us have the luxury of open communication with spirit. No small wonder, not everyone of old could be the shaman either.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
I believe in a Love that conquers death.
That, um, would be Christ...
lunamoth
Episcopalian
That, um, would be Christ...
That is what I meant.
Hi Path_of_One:
For us (Catholics), well me anyway, there is a distinction between Message and Mystery. The world can embrace the Message, according to its own determination, quite happily. The world finds it harder with the Mystery.
There is what the Word says, which the world can accommodate to itself relatively easily — the message is 'reasonable' and 'logical' and thus requires no supernatural or transcendental element to verify it, it is accessible to good, plain, common sense, it doesn't require faith, just a belief in self — and what the Word is, which is far more challenging, and requires 'a leap of faith' precisely because that faith is in something other than self.
For me, without who Christ is, the message is a romance. By which I mean, what Christ teaches, without the Mystery, is a generic, 'be nice' humanism.
Stripped of Mystery, we are left with 'the Quest for the Historical Jesus' and a faith founded on the 'critical minimum' — in which God is defined by credibility (or incredulity), something determined by human reason already constrained by philosophical relativism. Bultmann, The Jesus Seminar, the New Age and others see Christianity as nothing more more than a synthesis of a number of mythological and psychospiritual strands, built upon the fictional biography of a dead, and perhaps even non-existent, persona.
For me, the Mystery lies in the flesh of it — the essential Mystery of Christianity is that it happened — and for me, in so doing, its promise extends beyond the soul to the person, and beyond the person to the world.
Without the Resurrection, the Word — the Message — is dead.
(And the answer is, of course, it is only we who can separate ourselves from the love of God.)
... I find personal prayer tough. It's just hard work. I do it as a matter of self-discipline. I do believe that my prayers have been answered ... but I don't claim a personal relationship in prayer as you enjoy. It just doesn't happen for me. I don't stop praying, however, because I don't pray expecting payback...
Looking back over 50 years however, in and out of the Church, if I was to offer anything, I would say I don't find Christ in prayer because that's not where He wants me (I have trouble signing 'pax' on my posts, and am always looking for a better signoff) ... but I think I can say I have always been called to the Mystery (my mum says when I was four I took a leaf into school, and asked 'how does this work?' I got a rubbish answer, and gave up on school from that point on) ... it's the reason why I walked away from the Church in the first place ... but that's where I find Christ now, and there is no greater treasury of Mysteries, in my mind, than the Church.
I catch myself looking at people and thinking, why the hell are they here? But then that's me fault, not theirs.
Or put another way — if one believes in a spiritual resurrection, indeed I would say a spiritual incarnation ... why cannot God realise that incarnation and resurrection in the world, a world which He created and saw was 'good'? Because if he does not, then they do not apply to the world, and the world was created for no good end in itself, it seems to me.
But then some will say, OK, but it's a bloomin' messy and somewhat horrific way of doing it, isn't it? Yes, actually it is, but then we did rather make a mess of it, and the cure in that sense only reflects the disease.
Again, we're back to that paradox — does the Resurrection account in Scripture comprise a mythopoeic fiction to describe a psychospiritual reality, a 'breakthrough' as some might say, common to many spiritual traditions — or is the Resurrection the psychospiritual dimension actualised, realised, manifest and made real, in the physical world?
There is the Mystery that St Paul speaks of, for he believes absolutely in the Resurrection — without it, he claims, the whole thing's a crock ... but how that's gonna happen, the eschaton, is a Mystery yet to be revealed.
Without the reality, the best we can hope for is a flight of the soul from the body, of spirit from matter — an Hellenic doctrine, not an Abrahamic one, in which the world is there for no intrinsic reason, it's a shadow without value or virtue, a school if not a prison ... it is such I view that I assumed of the Chruch — the flesh is wrong — and why I walked away. I suppose if Christ were not my religion, Plato would be.
As the Fathers say, "That which is not assumed is not saved" — how my heart lit up when I read those words!
I do believe in the world, and I believe in the Cosmos as theophany.
Or Milton:
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
On His Blindness
+++
Not to say I walk in darkness. When I was a kid, I was doing an exam at school, as as the teacher walked passed, he noticed immediately I'd made a silly and fundamental mistake, and coughed, and tapped on my desk ... I looked again, and there it was, glaring at me.
I walk with the Holy Spirit, and as I peruse my books, and contemplate the Mysteries, every now and then He taps the desk as it were and, or pops an idea into my head, and, God bless my soul, something I'd never seen before!
Thomas
"And the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14).
For us (Catholics), well me anyway, there is a distinction between Message and Mystery. The world can embrace the Message, according to its own determination, quite happily. The world finds it harder with the Mystery.
There is what the Word says, which the world can accommodate to itself relatively easily — the message is 'reasonable' and 'logical' and thus requires no supernatural or transcendental element to verify it, it is accessible to good, plain, common sense, it doesn't require faith, just a belief in self — and what the Word is, which is far more challenging, and requires 'a leap of faith' precisely because that faith is in something other than self.
For me, without who Christ is, the message is a romance. By which I mean, what Christ teaches, without the Mystery, is a generic, 'be nice' humanism.
Stripped of Mystery, we are left with 'the Quest for the Historical Jesus' and a faith founded on the 'critical minimum' — in which God is defined by credibility (or incredulity), something determined by human reason already constrained by philosophical relativism. Bultmann, The Jesus Seminar, the New Age and others see Christianity as nothing more more than a synthesis of a number of mythological and psychospiritual strands, built upon the fictional biography of a dead, and perhaps even non-existent, persona.
For me, the Mystery lies in the flesh of it — the essential Mystery of Christianity is that it happened — and for me, in so doing, its promise extends beyond the soul to the person, and beyond the person to the world.
Without the Resurrection, the Word — the Message — is dead.
Then you are lucky, and you are gifted ... not all enjoy such a relationship. A bit like Paul, actually, if you think about it. All I would ask is do not hold others to account by the measure of your own gift.
Perhaps they do ... I know for many, many years I sought a Christ 'beyond the Church' and up a blind alley and made someone very rich in the process and he left a fair few casualties in his wake. I didn't have that 'personal experience' to rest on, and nor, I think, do the vast majority.
You quote Paul ... but are you prepared to stand in his place? Should we accept that, as a truth on which to base our lives, on your testimony? Is that not your gospel? It's a rhetorical question, not a criticism (none of this is in any way a criticism of you, I hope you can see that).
(And the answer is, of course, it is only we who can separate ourselves from the love of God.)
I would say each to his own ...
... I find personal prayer tough. It's just hard work. I do it as a matter of self-discipline. I do believe that my prayers have been answered ... but I don't claim a personal relationship in prayer as you enjoy. It just doesn't happen for me. I don't stop praying, however, because I don't pray expecting payback...
Looking back over 50 years however, in and out of the Church, if I was to offer anything, I would say I don't find Christ in prayer because that's not where He wants me (I have trouble signing 'pax' on my posts, and am always looking for a better signoff) ... but I think I can say I have always been called to the Mystery (my mum says when I was four I took a leaf into school, and asked 'how does this work?' I got a rubbish answer, and gave up on school from that point on) ... it's the reason why I walked away from the Church in the first place ... but that's where I find Christ now, and there is no greater treasury of Mysteries, in my mind, than the Church.
I catch myself looking at people and thinking, why the hell are they here? But then that's me fault, not theirs.
But that's the whole point! I would argue that if Christ were not literally resurrected, he would not be spiritually resurrected, either, that's my point.
Or put another way — if one believes in a spiritual resurrection, indeed I would say a spiritual incarnation ... why cannot God realise that incarnation and resurrection in the world, a world which He created and saw was 'good'? Because if he does not, then they do not apply to the world, and the world was created for no good end in itself, it seems to me.
But then some will say, OK, but it's a bloomin' messy and somewhat horrific way of doing it, isn't it? Yes, actually it is, but then we did rather make a mess of it, and the cure in that sense only reflects the disease.
Again, we're back to that paradox — does the Resurrection account in Scripture comprise a mythopoeic fiction to describe a psychospiritual reality, a 'breakthrough' as some might say, common to many spiritual traditions — or is the Resurrection the psychospiritual dimension actualised, realised, manifest and made real, in the physical world?
There is the Mystery that St Paul speaks of, for he believes absolutely in the Resurrection — without it, he claims, the whole thing's a crock ... but how that's gonna happen, the eschaton, is a Mystery yet to be revealed.
Without the reality, the best we can hope for is a flight of the soul from the body, of spirit from matter — an Hellenic doctrine, not an Abrahamic one, in which the world is there for no intrinsic reason, it's a shadow without value or virtue, a school if not a prison ... it is such I view that I assumed of the Chruch — the flesh is wrong — and why I walked away. I suppose if Christ were not my religion, Plato would be.
As the Fathers say, "That which is not assumed is not saved" — how my heart lit up when I read those words!
I do believe in the world, and I believe in the Cosmos as theophany.
Oooh, Path ... the words to my namesake echo in my mind ... "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:29).
Or Milton:
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
On His Blindness
And my ponderings on the Church is not that she is the object of my faith, He is the object of my faith, She is the manifestation of it in the flesh, as it were, and in so being is prone to error and sin in her members. So I labour to counterbalance that, and try to put it right. The meaning of the Message belongs to the world, but the meaning of the Mystery belongs to Her alone, and I hope one day we will see Her in Her true splendour, because when we do, we will see ourselves as we could be.
+++
Not to say I walk in darkness. When I was a kid, I was doing an exam at school, as as the teacher walked passed, he noticed immediately I'd made a silly and fundamental mistake, and coughed, and tapped on my desk ... I looked again, and there it was, glaring at me.
I walk with the Holy Spirit, and as I peruse my books, and contemplate the Mysteries, every now and then He taps the desk as it were and, or pops an idea into my head, and, God bless my soul, something I'd never seen before!
Thomas