David,

I think this is dead right - bravo. You correctly say exactly what Christianity should be about and everything it shouldn't. It was an interesting point you made about Paul's influence on the Church. I have read that Paul and James tussled quite strongly over the true meaning and teaching of Christianity. Your explanation starts to unravel this for me.

>>This basic form of Christian law says that we can do anything we like to anyone at any time under any circumstances, and provided we find a reason why we are right, we remain free of sin. This form of Christian law has infiltrated our society to the extent that the first reply that comes back if we question someone’s actions will be “I am right”; or “it is legal.”<<

This comment is exactly right. I'm thinking George Bush and other fundamentalists here. The consequences of such actions as you describe are that when the wheel eventually turns, all those who did bad deeds to others will pay with interest. The Church's repressing of others ability to spiritually grow will be particularly severely punished.

I saw the SBS show Lost Worlds re the Inquisitions last night. Nasty piece of work the Churches were responsible for. All so the Church hierarchy could maintain its hold on earthly power.

Nicely said!
If Christians actually followed some of Jesus's teachings then I'd have more respect for them. As it is they are just the modern Phareeses, doing what Jesus lectured against! This is so cynical, if not evil.
When churches do science (ie. show an interest in getting it right rather than potificating and bullying), then I'll pay them some respect. For now though it's like "Jesus was a great man and the Son of God. Lets do the opposite of what he said, and just to rub it in, we'll do it in His name!".
Finally. Anyone lazy/egotistical enough to not work, but instead label themselves "the agent of God" as a career...should definately *not* be allowed to do this role. It's like putting the fat kid in charge of the chocolate!

Good essay altogether, and yes it is time that we threw away all of the usual institutionalized nonsense with both hands.

Havent we had enough of this nonsense after 2000 years!

Indeed the breaking of the toxic spell of institutional religion/religiosity is a real necessity if something radically new is to emerge.

But what is an authentic understanding of the Life and Teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee, and how does one get to practice an authentic Spiritual life?

This reference gives an Illuminated Understanding of the Life and Teaching of Saint Jesus.

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/EWB_pp436-459.html#jesusandtheteaching

Plus in more general cultural-historical terms

http://www.dabase.org/birthday.htm

But how does one generate an authentic Spiritual Practice because True Spiritual Practice is not, and never has been, an exercise of do-it-yourself-spirituality. Although us Westerners might like to think so.

One needs the guidance of a thresh-hold "personality", or one who has gone through and thus mastered the difficult process of psycho-physical transformation, and is thus qualified to Teach and Guide others through the process.

The key to Spiritual Life and Practice is transformation of ones psycho-anatomy, or the intrinsic structures of our body-minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ideas.

True Spiritual Life is the most difficult and creative endeavor one can engage in. Therefore, like all difficult and challenging creative-processes, on needs a teacher, an accomplished master.

As in all other areas of life that require mastery of the necessary disciplines.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/spiritual_master/spiritual_teacher.html

Plus True Spiritual Life can only be practiced within the context of a Sacred Community and not out there in amongst the insanity of the common world.

http://www.dabase.org/restsacr.htm

This contemporary reference gives some glimpses as to the necessity of the guidance of a Spiritual Master

http://www.goldensufi.org/a_chasm_fire.html

Highly recommened

<<Does Christianity exist for us,or do we exist for Christianity?>>we should egsist for neighbour and god

..the word of God belong to us all as freely as it is given

<<..for the few chosen ones of organised religion?>>of course NOT

<<Christianity/not a religion,..it's a legal system.>>contains law but is not the law

<<The Pharisees had a law for everything,and they administered the law.There was no spirituality in their law.They set themselves up as God’s legal representatives on earth,and if anyone wanted to contact God they had to go through God’s-lawyers.>>

GOD IS A PERSONAL GOD...[jesus reveales we can each KNOW god PERSONALY]...hear his still quiet voice WITHIN...know our masters voice..[of love]..like a beast in a stable knows his masters voice...thus not be fooled into sin[knowing all good comes from god..[that we shall do greater than we saw jesus do]..love god/love neighbour

<<Not only did Jesus challenge the right of the Pharisees to act as God’s lawyers,he taught that if we wanted to seek truth,we could look within to find it.>>..you shall call him emanuel..[god within us all]

<<it would have been the end of the Pharisees and the end of a legal system that separates us from God...When Paul/infiltrated the early Christian/church he imposed the Pharisees’legal structure onto Christian thinking and converted Christianity..from a religion following the teachings of Jesus..into a legal system.>>a-greed

<<The murder of Jesus has been made legal because it was..>>..been DEEMED to be God’s will...made into creed to feed the greed...he knows sin is forgiven[by god]..BUT..not nessesarilly the one wronged..lol...that can take a lot of sincere redeeming in the next life..[7 fold] best not to do ill unto others.in the first place, that you do to the least you do to god.

<<This wrathfilled vengefull form of Christian law has infiltrated our society to the extent that the first reply that comes back if we question someone’s actions will be“I am right”;or“it is legal.”>>..when it should be is this of the same good jesus would do..[ie..be of the same grace as god gives][as the same grace jesus revealed]turn the other cheek

Surely, as with every religion, Christianity exists only for the individual, and not - in any spiritual sense - external to the individual?

As such, the question "Does Christianity have a future" cannot possibly be answered by consensus, or acclaim, or by a plebiscite. The only credible answer can be "For me, yes", or "For me, no".

To attempt to generalize, as the author does, leads to some ridiculous conclusions:

>>This basic form of Christian law says that we can do anything we like to anyone at any time under any circumstances, and provided we find a reason why we are right, we remain free of sin.<<

That is clearly a nonsense. As nonsensical as it would be if you substituted the word "atheist" for "Christian" - as indeed, many Christian apologists do, regularly, on this very forum.

The entire piece seems, to the non-religious, to be an advertisement for something called gnosticism.

>>The gnostic way is the opposite of the legal way. Think for yourselves, make your own decisions, and accept responsibility for your actions.<<

Once again, the shallowness of the argument can be exposed by the same tactic - replace "gnostic" with "atheist". It still makes absolute sense.

What we are not told, and just might be of a little interest, is whether and how these ideas have changed since the book was written ten years ago.

"Jesus, Son of God? Jesus, king of the Jews? Jesus, the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies? Does it matter?"

Of course it does. Assuming he existed at all, then if Jesus really was the son of god, his sayings have a uniquely authoritative backing. If he was just another Smart Dead Guy then he has to take his place in line with Buddha, Mohammed, Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Bacon, Einstein, Spinoza, Heraclitus, Marcus Aurelius, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Harvey, Jenner, Lister, Marie Curie, Keynes, Galbraith, Richard Dawkins and thousands of others, all saying contradictory things.

How do we tell which Smart Dead (and Living) Guys to believe? How about following the ones who have done most to extend our lifespan, improve our material comforts and increase our literacy and understanding? And where does Jesus stand on those criteria? Well outside the top hundred, I'm afraid.

The attempt to salvage Christianity by depicting Jesus as some kind of super-smart human guru falls down when it comes to describing the largely banal and platitudinous things he had to say. If Jesus made any kind of unique discovery or had any especially useful insight then let's have it, and we can judge it on its own merits. But what we find in the Bible is a nice guy, not especially bright, who is doomed by his failure to outgrow his own Messiah complex.

Hi to you all. Thank you for your mostly positive comments.

RopP I was disappointed that the SBS only dealt with the end of the Cathars. The last two good men was the end of the genocide started in 1203 by the Church of Rome. It is a hideous story and shows the true nature of Christianity. Dominic Guzman (St Dominic) deserves a special mention. He makes Hitler look like a rank amateur.

Ho Hum. There are many ways to spirituality. The greatest sin of Christianity was to set itself up as the only true religion and violently suppressed any other religious views. Our society would probably be a lot richer had the ideas of the Gnostics, the Cathars, Pagans, Wicca and countless other forms of seeking spirituality had been allowed to exist.
I am of the view that the way forward is to integrate our spiritual life with the physical word the way the Cathars seemed to have done.

Pericles. <<Surely, as with every religion, Christianity exists only for the individual, and not - in any spiritual sense - external to the individual?>> No. It is true of what Westerns today think of as religion (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) but not all religions. The Buddhist religion (an example) seeks to help and guide an individual to there own understanding.

<<The entire piece seems, to the non-religious, to be an advertisement for something called gnosticism.>> Gnostic Christianity appears to have been the original form before Paul came along and destroyed it. Hence harking back to Gnostic Christianity as the true Christian religion.

My understanding has deepened in the last ten years, but the essence of the understanding that Paul destroyed Christianity as it could have been has not changed. This does not mean I am a closet Gnostic or Christian of any sort.

John J. Jesus son of God is something Paul dreamed up after the death of Jesus. It was not part of the original Christianity (nor was the Trinity). The 'Sermon on the Mount' from the literal Greek translation may change your mind about Jesus.

**>>This basic form of Christian law says that we can do anything we like to anyone at any time under any circumstances, and provided we find a reason why we are right, we remain free of sin.<<

That is clearly a nonsense.**

Pericles,

I think what Daviy is talking about is the way Christianity has been practised by many adherents over the centuries, not necessarily the way people some practise it or see it now.

For example, the ultimate heresy in my view is the way the Church had, for many centuries, twisted the meaning of Christ's resurrection around to say that Christ died for mankind's sins, as if all those sins were magically hoovered away and absolved.

Did you see the program on SBS? Look at the way those of superior intellect in the Church manipulated the situation for personal power and advantage over the centuries. A nonsense - I don't think so. A certain amount of that past attitude has been transmitted to today's world without a doubt.

Anyone who doubts that Christianity has a future should take the time to attend the Hillsong Conference in July. It will have to be the one in 2010, because the one in 2009, is fully booked out. It is held at Acer Arena at Olympic Park, and brings together some of the very best preachers and teachers in the world to one place for a week. The venue probably hold 24,000 people and attracts delegates from all over the world.

At Easter Hillsong did a head count of all its attendances, and claims 38,000 people attended its services across the city. It held Easter services in the Entertainment Centre in the City, with an electronic interface with its Baulkham Hills campus, and its Macarthur campus in the South of Sydney, and unless a person has attended these services on a weekly basis for a couple of years, the wonderful way it teaches Christianity as a way of life, is not clearly understood.

It makes no pretence that Almighty God is not alive and well. It changes lives for those who seek its lessons. It works miracle like changes in the lives of those who come to it, and start to read and understand the Word of God. Its influence is far greater than the numbers would indicate. In fact it probably heralds the future of Christianity, and the way we will be governed into the rest of the time that Australia survives as a democracy.

David Young raises a number of interesting points. One is that Christianity is a political system. It is a political system that has stood the test of time; With a few aberrations leading to civil wars, after Rome tried to discipline the unruly English, and promoted warfare within Britain. Christianity supplied the governing principles under which the English democracy thrived. It was adopted by the United States. We must take government back from the lawyers. The Commonwealth will fail as all republics governed by lawyers have failed. Lawyers and Priests are the bane of every society. They mix God and power in one person, disastrously

Daviy, we are going to have to disagree again, I'm afraid.

>>Pericles. <<Surely, as with every religion, Christianity exists only for the individual, and not - in any spiritual sense - external to the individual?>> No. It is true of what Westerns today think of as religion (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) but not all religions. The Buddhist religion (an example) seeks to help and guide an individual to there own understanding.<<

Which is exactly as I described - an entirely individual "understanding", or experience. The fact that there is someone there to guide you is entirely common across all religions.

The point I was making, and which you avoid, is that the future of any religion is entirely dependent upon its impact on the individual. If it continues to provide spiritual sustenance to people who need it, then it will survive.

As a direct result of this, a religion's future surely depends far more on the present conduct of those who "guide" - the Pope, Jensen, Sun Myung Moon, paedophile priests etc. - than the antics of folk a couple of thousand years ago.

You are looking at the issues, as so many religious people do, from the point of view that one or the other has to be "right", and religious satisfaction is only a matter of choosing the "right" one. Hence this stunningly unimportant differentiation between Christianity and gnosticism.

It is entirely irrelevant which religion a person either finds themselves involved in, or chooses for themselves.

Essentially, religion fills an emotional, not an intellectual need. Wrestling with the trivia of one interpretation versus another can only have the effect of turning even more people off the idea. It's the penalty for thinking about it too hard.

Pericles

At least we agree that you and I disagreeing is nothing new.

<<Which is exactly as I described - an entirely individual "understanding", or experience. The fact that there is someone there to guide you is entirely common across all religions.>>

What you describe is reasonably close to how Christianity started. But Christianity went feral and set up a structure that destroyed anything or anyone that refused to accept that they had the sole authority to dispense 'Gods Law' on this earth. This is not guiding, this is oppression.

<<The point I was making, and which you avoid, is that the future of any religion is entirely dependent upon its impact on the individual.>>
Exactly what I am saying head on in my article. If Christianity can dispose of its despotic oppressive structure and return to being a guide that has relevance to the individual then it will survive. If not it will die.

Even though the power of the Christian church to destroy has largely taken away by separation of church and state the basic structure of Christianity has not changed. It still attempts to rule and oppress rather than guide. It demands blind obedience.

<<You are looking at the issues, as so many religious people do, from the point of view that one or the other has to be "right", and religious satisfaction is only a matter of choosing the "right" one. Hence this stunningly unimportant differentiation between Christianity and gnosticism.>> I am not religious, nor do I claim any form of right or wrong.

When you write things like this I wonder if you are confusing what I write with what someone else as written. With the Christian attitude there is no choice. That is why I oppose it in its existing form. If you look at what I am saying you would see that we are very close in our thinking. Maybe judgement is getting in the way of seeing what I am saying. Why keep arguing with someone who agrees with you?

The author obviously does not know the history of Christianity well or simply is out of touch with the church esp the Catholic Church.

I was converted more than 10 years ago from Tibetan Buddhism (which seems also be legal by his standards) and never in my faith life have I experienced legalistic situations in the church. In fact, Christian mysticism is getting popular and the church simply embrace any Christian spiritual exercises according to his or her stage of maturity. For myself, I am more into inner works embracing the spirituality of Hildegard of Bingen and the mystics. The church did not say we are wrong. In fact, in church we were taught to look within where God exists and practices inner life. There are so much of this in the church that the author is not aware of.
Yes, there are rules in the church but every community has its own rules even new age bodies and cult groups. But rule must be interpreted according to the conscious and as a guide. But all in all is trying to help us lead to union with God.
There are also traffic rules but as long as you cross the road, that is the objective. Imagine there are no rules and guides, no government everyone can say and do what they like in this world.
May be the author have been hurt by someone in the church whom he could not forgive and that is why he thinks that the institutional church need to be dismantled.
The institutional church exists to protect the faith as handled down by the apostles. I see this as a great thing to protect liars like Dan Brown.
BTW, Gnostic christianity is a later development just like the reformation and don't be fooled by all these evidence lacking novels.