Here I must stand

Not exactly Jesus

Some reflections on Christianity and related topics.

When I started searching for an alternative to atheism-materialism almost 20 years, I considered generic Christianity to be one of the most sympathetic religions. The idea that God loves and saves humanity despite us still being sinners certainly sounds better (and more radical, or radically loving) than the notion that humans must *do* something (“works”) to earn God´s salvation. I originally assumed that Hindu bhakti and Pure Land Buddhism had the same trait, but with the exception of certain forms of the latter, that doesn´t seem to be the case. Here, too, you have to earn your “grace” (!) by carrying out certain rituals, avoid beef, do yoga, or whatever.

Thus, the “populist” streak in Christianity, best expressed in certain forms of Protestantism, was immensely attractive. So was the idea of the substitutionary atonement, in which God becomes a human, and voluntarily sacrifices himself in order to cleanse us (and the entire universe) from negative karma. In other religions, it´s always the believer that has to sacrifice himself (or herself), indeed, the symbolically dying and resurrecting *human* might be the oldest archetype in the world. In other words, other religions are really for a spiritual elite, not for Everyman.

Another trait I found attractive was the personal or “personalist” character of the Christian God. The idea of an impersonal “god” sounds like atheist materialism – a kind of “spiritualized” materialism, but still basically the same thing. What on earth is the point of taking up a religion if you´re still alone, and now in a universe that´s *even vaster* than the materialist one? I suppose the possibility of Love is another attractive feature of a personal god, although not one I was that interested in 20 years ago.

Of course, a closer study of Christianity and the Bible clearly reveals that the Christian religion simply can´t be true as literally stated. Indeed, it´s not even clear whether Jesus was a real historical person to begin with! If he was, his real message was probably more "Jewish" than "Christian". Which doesn´t help much, since the Hebrew scriptures aren´t particularly trustworthy either. It might not even be desirable that Christianity is true. While some passages in the NT sound Inclusivist, and a few might even be massaged into sounding Universalist, there is also a very strong and clear Exclusivist streak present. Not to mention a preoccupation with revenge, on both unbelievers (principally Jews) and "false" Christians. In other words, a new form of elitism. 

The moral advice given is bizarre, ranging from the non-resistance to evil of the Sermon on the Mount to the retrospective support for the Canaanite genocide in Stephen´s speech. The preoccupation with martyrdom present already in early Church tradition also strikes me as weird, since the only thing Christians had to do to avoid being killed was to pledge formal allegiance to the Empire by "sacrificing" to the genius of the emperor. Many religious groups use dissimulation in such situations, so why not the Christians? 

But the main argument against any of it being true are the failed apocalyptic prophecies in the NT, not only those put in the mouth of Jesus (which contradict each other), but also those of Paul and John (in so far as Revelation can be decoded at all). These prophecies show that early Christianity was just another apocalyptic sect of the kind that have been common in the Axial Age. And once that background is realized, pretty much everything changes...

I have no idea what the alternative might be to any of the above, except to say that no religious tradition I´m aware of suits me as a person...or seems to be true at all. But then, atheism-materialism doesn´t seem true either. Even apart from being unsufferable on other grounds. 

"Here I must stand, and can do no other".