WJ

Just another commentary maybe from a 'recent trends' point of view.

In the information age/21st Century, I indeed see a resurgence of sorts. I see it in the form of the psuedo 60's revolution returning not only to dress, but similar thought processes in and outside the workplace. The distinction seems to be purpose/ethics viz. education and freedom.

What I mean is that I believe that young people, now a bit more armed with information, will quickly want to seek answers (ethical in nature) for questions about 'what I ought to do' and 'what I ought to believe' and have hope for. Further, things like flexible hours and quality time will afford much more oppurtunities for comtemplation about things that relate to issues of Self.

And thoses issues of Self [of Being] relate to the 60's. The natural outgrowth of this could be a return to Spirituality (or some form of). But I don't think it will be in a 'religious' sense. Mysticism means so much to many, and I think this thread could be an interesting exploration of what could be possible (both positive and negative) for the new ager in the 21st Century.

Good post!

Walrus

WJ

I forgot to mention something that is specifically germain to this topic of Christianity and the new ager. The upside of Gnosticism within the outgrowth of Christianity was Spirituality.

ManM

Vorkosigan,
I quite agree that you can say whatever the theological school and church you're associated with will let you get away with. However, what you say might not make any sense. I'm sure someone could be creative and come up with some scheme to describe a Jesus mythology. Why bother? It might be cute and/or entertaining, but I don't see any real power behind it.

lpetrich

Read my comments more carefully, Tercel. Richard Carrier was proposing the response to JC-mythicism of positing that JC had been purely spiritual, without a historical JC ever having existed.

Also, Earl Doherty has made a very well-reasoned case for the JC-myth hypothesis, which is why I think that the possibility of its spread is worth considering. Check out <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle</a> for more.

lpetrich

So what are you claiming, ManM? That unless you believed that Jesus Christ had historically risen from the dead, you would cringe in fear of death?

Actually, belief in life after death has been common, and many people claim to have discovered evidence for it.

* Mystic visions and experiences. However, different people experience different things in their experiences, and these may ultimately be hallucinatory.

* Near-death experiences. Most likely some hallucination induced by the brain not getting enough oxygen.

* Out-of-body experiences. This is indirect evidence, because it suggests that one's consciousness can depart from one's body while one's body is still alive. This is most likely hallucinatory; there is no sign that one learns anything really new in such adventures.

* Communicating with the dead. This has variously been called necromancy, spiritualism, and channeling. Either an overworked imagination or outright fakery.

* Memories of past lives. This is considered evidence of reincarnation, which is generally extrapolated into the future. In many cases, the "rememberer" had learned those past-life details from elsewhere.

ManM

lpetrich,
My point is that Christianty makes no sense if Jesus wasn't real. Claiming that a mythical Jesus conquered death renders much of Christianity meaningless and silly. I do not think Christianity can be reconciled with the denial of Jesus and retain its meaning.

WJ

Ipetrich!

Just curious, do you believe that complete skepticism is self refuting?

Vorkosigan

Certainly not its current meaning. But several people have argued that originally Christianity had just that meaning. Like the pagans, the death of Christ happened in mythic time in some overworld. It might even be a more interesting and vigorous Christianity. Myths have such energy as people choose to impart to them. Really, I think Christianity would survive, even prosper, if it gave up historicity. It might be much nicer for those of us around it too.

echidna

But also ManM, there are other Christians who argue that Christianity makes no sense unless one believes in Genesis and the Tower of Babel. I agree that this new flavour of Christianity is a yet less strict interpretation than others, but nonetheless I am quite comfortable to call it Christianity, since to me, the core tenets, the essence of Christianity is not in its human details, but its humanistic parables and wisdom.

I agree with Vorkosigan that this is what Bishop Spong and many others are trying to do, basically to try and save the core humanist message while discarding the myth and dogma.

Certainly here there is quite a throng of progressive clergymen who are quite open to the non-literalness of the Resurrection and the NT.

echidna

Sidenote : I remember a loud and very public argument I had once on a train, 20 years ago, with a Catholic girlfriend, who was less than impressed at the suggestion that Jesus’s divinity wasn’t really important to Christianity. An elderly man was quite amused & suggested that we should both kiss and make up.

Mind you, my Catholic partner now is still coming to grips with clergymen being allowed to marry in other denominations. Ho hum.