What is christianism?

What with more than 20 versions of the Bible in common use now, including the fascinating Lamsa version, we can wonder about questions surrounding everything from the nature of collections through the exigencies of translation to the near impossibility of an assured "correct" interpretation.* The King James version relied on thousands of differing texts, none original, to compile and interpret from the intellectual and pious standpoint of people who weren't there. And since there are about 300 major ecclesiastical traditions worldwide divisible as over 40,000 denominations,** it is difficult to imagine that any of them under these circumstances follow THE actual teachings of The Christ.

Those considerations point to modern christianism being some very modified version filtered through the 3rd-century politicization of Catholicism and then the Reformation. There is a very good argument that the *actual* Teachings were congruent with nondualism. In any case, Mark 4:33,34 casts grave reason to rely solely on the minute bit surviving as the compilation of the red letter versions of the Gospels, never mind the ruckus between Peter and Paul. All this, especially the passage from Mark, legitimately leaves one to wonder what christianism today might actually be.

~~~

* A fascinating book, often used in comparative religious studies, treats extensively of these questions in an easily understandable style and yet has all pertinent scholarly references. It has the unfortunate title of "Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity", that being a moniker sure to be off-putting to some. That is unfortunate considering the actual practical value of its contents. The author is Gina Cerminara.

** The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimated 34,000 denominations in 2000, rising to an estimated 43,000 in 2012. These numbers have exploded from 1,600 in the year 1900.

not this or that

I have been reviled for both defending Islam and bashing Christianity.* In fact, neither is true. What I have found for myself is that there is a realm of consideration that precedes and is fundamental to the arguments which contrast allegations about this or that religion or Party. Those, in my estimation, are not only distractions but tend to serve to ensure failure in resolving questions or situations couched in those terms. In fact, any discussions which rely on labels of religion or party are doomed because they are restricted to the gravely limited portion of our considerations which have to do with externals and measurement. This is part of the parcel we inherit as the deterioration of the ideals of the Enlightenment which came to exclude the realm of meaning and feeling.

Further, the "us and them" category of arguments and righteousness is lowest and least useful or adaptable form of logic. It is essentially dualistic and defeats the fundamental sameness of the contrasted factions. These factions are ultimately acting from the same motivations. What isn't recognized or dealt with is that the adaptations of those motivation made necessary by things as simple as geography and cultural heritage are not where the actual problem lies. That is only where they are played out as contrast, when in essence they are in fact identical.

Our motivations all wear the clothing necessary for survival where we are. The fact that others have adapted clothing necessary for where *they* are is neither an actual cause for contention or for animosity. But we are not, at the level of those needs and motivations, inclusive of other's ways of dealing with them. That is because they are at such a fundamental level of awareness that we perceive differences as "not self, not mine" and react rather than study, consider, or inquire. So when both "opposames" see difference, that is what gets inflated because survival is our prime directive. Survival is also, if we are honest, the root of morality.

And this is where emotional and intellectual maturity, as well as education, have a role. Where the animal nature reacts and defends, the mature human, while very capable of doing that in various degrees, can step back and abstract the sense of self from its apparent circumstance. In fact, a huge part of maturity is to understand and to function from the standpoint that circumstance is largely appearance, even chimeric. And the ability to do this abstraction of self from appearance is what constitute the at least 10 levels of human awareness ability, each differentiated by a fulcrum of inclusion and transformation. But few seem to be aware of this process and its profound implications, either in themselves or others singularly or as levels of groups.

So we have solutions to all of these problems, including war, etc, at closer than our fingertips. But because of the ingrained superficiality of our society which educates us out of self-awareness, we miss the very tools which could lead to the rather simple solutions to the massive conflicts we engage in from within ourselves to over the globe. Go figure.

*I use the term "christianist" because there are over 40,000 named and practicing brands of that stream of religiosity. Those are all over the map as to belief, and it is hard to imagine that any of them match with any reasonable proximity the Original Teaching. That, if one considers the time, region, traditions, and other factors, much more closely resembles what can be called "nondualism" than anything purported to be His teaching by any contemporary institution.