I said:
I think it should be underlined that we try to support as many Christian viewpoints here, not least Liberal to Conservative, without any bias.
Don't be afraid to express a view different to Quahom or Juantoo3 - they post as individuals with their own thoughts, but clearly mark their posts different when acting as a moderator. And no moderator has a remit to censor different views.
The overall question here I tried to raise is one of fundamentals - regardless as to what the Bible says or not, traditional Christian Theology has it that Jesus was required sacrificed to save us from Original Sin.
However, if someone is to say there was no Original Sin, but that Jesus is their Saviour, the question is - Saviour from what?
I'm not trying to belittle any position in this thread - this is entirely for the purpose of discussion.
It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace.
I'm sort of hoping to see more of the pro-liberal arguments.
Again, I will suggest that the belief in Christ Jesus as a Saviour need have
nothing to do with this notion of
original sin ... because the
same truths as expressed by Christian elders can be found in the far more ancient teachings of the Hindu Vedas. Yes, I realize this isn't the
Comparative forum, and that's a shame. Nonetheless, I will need to at least provide a couple of examples to make my point:
First Example"Lead us, O Lord, from darkness to light;
from the unreal to the real;
from death to immortality."
(Brihadaranyaki Upanishad I, 3, 28)
In this ancient mantram, or prayer, the
Lord Who is asked so to
lead us ... will be found to be IDENTICAL with the Christ of Christianity. Does this prove that there is no original sin? No, perhaps not. But
IF I am correct, then it
does show that belief in the Christ is
far more ancient than even contemporary Christianity is willing to admit ... with its own acquiesances to the traditions of a
Messiah in Judaism far predating the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth.
If God sent us Christ, then He also sent us Sri Krishna before Him, He sent us the Buddha, He sent us Orpheus, Zoroaster, Thoth-Hermes, Vyasa, and the earlier
Herakles.
ALL of these were World Teachers, Messiahs, and
`Christs.' The Ancient Record preserves this truth, and
only Christians, of all the world's believers, seem to pitch a fit when this fact is pointed out. WHY?
Does it really hurt so much to discover that
G-d is organized enough, thoughtful enough, and caring enough to have
always walked with us
in Human form, to help us along our journey (and return to His Loving,
more direct Presence)? That He still walks with us today, when & where needed? That we
didn't actually make the colossal goof-up, which misunderstanding can really result
only if we take the tales of Genesis
literally?
But let's move on to
Example Two:
"Whenever the world declineth in virtue and righteousness; and vice and injustice mount the throne, then cometh I, the Lord and revisit my world in visible form, and mingleth as a man with men, and by my influence and teachings do I destroy the evil and injustice and reestablish virtue and righteousness. Many times have I thus appeared, and many times hereafter shall I come again." (Bhagavad-Gita, 4;7,8)
Here, Sri Krishna's words to Arjuna, as those of Christ to His disciples, remind us that God has
never abandoned Humanity -
who are collectively and only so His "Chosen People." Why is it
necessary for God to keep manifesting in this way, as the Bhagavad Gita teaches us, and the Bible after it?
Because Humanity is as a young child, even though we are on our way, growing to maturity,
we must still invoke the LIGHT, the TRUTH, and the ETERNAL (
`G-d') as in the Upanishad above. And SO did Christ Himself speak, as so many Christians are wont to remind us (
John 14:6) ... but not the first was He to appear as Saviour, nor the last.
For Him who hears, Christ speaks plainly in the Gita, even in modern English, less than a century ago. Are we really so unworthy, so corrupt, so hopeless that
G-d has abandoned his
once-holy people ... and left us to our destruction, save those rare & fortunate few - who, even in their last hour, with their last, dying breath, somehow find the inspiration and the wherewithal to cry
"Jesus!" and be delivered!?!
Heavens no. That is just the point. No eternal perdition, no state (or stain) of corruption just because of human birth,
no inheriting of the "sins of our fathers." Inasmuch as we belong to
collective Humanity, the ONE Human Family, yes, there is a "collective sin." Inasmuch as it is
we ourselves to which these passages are referring ("Whom did sin, THIS MAN or his parents, that HE was born
blind?") ... then, yes, again we have inherited
our own karma.
Come now. Let's not pretend that anyone is trying to
invent a new Christianity by acknowledging that Christ taught all these things. If the Scriptures have been carefully, jealously and zealously edited so as to
seem to suggest other alternatives, then I should say it is those who insist
other than I do who have invented a different Christianity!
To stand and tell me that,
"This is how things are, because this here book says it's so" ... that REALLY shows me something. Not a paper pope, but the
Living Law, written in
every human heart - THIS is the authority which Christ knew, and taught, and emphasized. Or have we so soon forgotten? Shall we dispute this point, and do all we can to preserve the bastions ...
Nothing that is founded on Truth shall fall, just as nothing that is erected on an
unstable foundation shall last. The former structure may be a
far slower to take its glorious and wonderful form, while in the intervening time, MANY HUNDREDS of lesser kingdoms, castles and monuments will rise & fall. And their names are
religions, governments and ideologies, while the former is the
singular prototype of each.
I know, I know, that's all sufficiently vague, yet isn't my point
exactly what this thread is about? Force a literal interpretation & translation, and you can build an entire religion around a man called Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha. Insist on
too liberal an interpretation, and a faith will fall apart or disappear - in terms of outward organization(s).
What, then, is the solution? Will the Catholics and the fundamentalists hear nothing of "Christ the Saviour" without his
death as atonement for our sins (a hearkening back to the blood sacrifice of the OLD religions, of course)? And will the atheists and the skeptical humanists insist that Jesus was nice bloke, but clearly just a radical hippie with a pipe dream that never manifested? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between, safe from each of these extremes, and much more tenable - even by a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, and an Agnostic. I like to believe so ...
Namaste, and Peace,
taijasi
