You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Redeeming Christ: An Indispensable Introduction

in #philosophy8 years ago

I'm very interested in reading your book. Your passion for the subject and a powerful sense of integrity come across powerfully in your introduction. I do have one question for you. Why is it important to you to re-interpret the bible or try to find some new meaning for Christianity in order to give it new life? It is a religion in decline, not just because of the choice you must make, (insanity or pointlessness,) but because it is tarnished and lacks relevancy for many. If there is anything to be discovered or understood about the world, our place in it or our purpose, why can't new thinkers do it with fresh eyes, heart and minds? Your book may provide a highly valuable historical analysis with deep insights into the spiritual messages it contains.....and that may help some people, but it wouldn't change anything for me. People do not need Christianity or any religion to be spiritual. I wish you the best of luck. I'll do my best to keep an open mind.

Sort:  

A great question, and thanks for asking.

First, I very much agree that one does not need religion to be spiritual or enlightened or saved or freed. In fact, organized religion is often a barrier to these things.

With that in mind, let me give a bit of a long-winded answer to your question: My thesis, which will become more apparent as the book unfolds, is that almost all religions begin their life not as religions per se but as systems for the development of consciousness, or transcendence of ego. In short, they begin their life as a way of helping their followers "wake up".

However, the process of waking up can only be experienced subjectively, not formally taught. Teachers can facilitate the process with verbal lessons, but often such facilitation becomes a hindrance rather than an aid largely due to the limitations of language. Language is simply not capable of describing life in the awakened state or of sufficiently illuminating the way of realizing it.

Because of this, each awakened teacher invariably resorts to symbolism, or figurative language. We see this, for example, with Zen koans. I have, in fact, resorted to figurative language here when I used the words "wake up" two paragraphs above. By "wake up" I didn't mean, of course, merely awakening from literal sleep. Rather I meant something similar but different, something spiritual.

Figurative language can be an effective guide to the awakening student exactly because the words usually fail to make literal sense. They are a literal contradiction. And, it's exactly this failure of the words to make sense literally that is SUPPOSED to signal the devotee to search for additional, hidden meaning or to view the problem or the saying from a different perspective, a different level of consciousness.

Spirituality and enlightenment degenerate into religion when these useful symbols fail work. This most often happens when the devotees latch on to the literal meaning of the symbol offered by the teacher and refuse to move beyond it even despite its literal impossibility. In short, suspending all reason, and foreclosing all possibility of additional spiritual growth, they begin to insist that the impossible is actually possible. How? Because God.

This corruptions of symbols with literal interpretations has happened throughout history time and time again, resulting in religion after religion coming into existence. As the old once-helpful symbols become literalized and therefore fail to offer any transcendent usefulness, new religions with new symbols (ultimately describing the same process of awakening as the old) are born, and the process repeats.

So...now to answer your question: I'm not trying to save religion or rescue Christianity (as that term is popularly understood). Quite the contrary: I'm trying to force people (through facts, logic, reason and history) to stop insisting that the impossible is possible. Only then, once Literalism is abandoned, do we stand any chance of mass awakening.

It's true, I could instead try to simply approach the subject with "fresh eyes, hearts and mind"--that is, with fresh symbols-- but those symbols would ultimately be similarly corrupted by literal interpretations. All I would have done in the process is start a new religion, which doesn't interest me in the least.

Instead, I'm seeking to undermine Literalism. The persistent corruption of spiritual symbols via Literalism is always the enemy of true spiritual awakening, and Christianity is among the most persistently literal of religions. It's true that people don't need Christianity or any religion to be spiritual, but they do need symbols to be spiritual, or at least to attempt to learn spirituality, the path of waking up, from others. By undermining the persistent corruption of symbols--that is, Literalism, I simply hope to break the cycle and plant the seeds for eventual mass transcendence.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly! It was very rewarding to read and I take your point about perpetuating the transformation to literalism in attempting to articulate an 'awakeneing.' The only thing I'll ask before patiently waiting to read your book is.....if religions are the spawn of miscommunication, (and I appreciate that this can happen over considerable amounts of time,) have you given any thought to the possibility of different approaches to spiritual guidance (assuming this persists in being necessary.) For example, concentrating on improving education with a very light touch. The point being that I think there are potentially many approaches that can support a person's journey that will not yield the kinds of miscommunication that leads to religion. Although I accept miscommunication can and probably always has been encouraged by those who are just waiting to use people. The less 'guidance' the better then perhaps?

Honestly, I had not pondered the possibility. I like the idea, though I struggle to think of specific "light touch" examples that don't involve language. Ultimately, the challenge is one of language--how to convey the experience of the ineffable in such a way as to lead others to experience it. Perhaps we should avoid language altogether and focus upon other means of communication--touch, sounds, psychedelics, etc.? You've got me thinking.

Without meaning to be oversimplistic, actions may speak louder than words. I genuinely believe that actions, or the lack of them can have a profound and deep impact. An action that engenders a powerfully visceral response does not necessarily need verbal articulation. It's funny that so many advocates for self-awareness and spiritual awakeneing suggest meditation. Mediation is an activity that is generally undertaken in peace and quiet....certainly without the need for talking. Just some additional thoughts to throw out there! ;))