It must be acknowledged that Mr. Neville Jayaweera’s commitment to his new found faith has inspired him to evangelize and, like all born again evangelists, he is on a tireless mission to make others see the way he sees the world. He has embraced unreservedly the authorized Nicene Creed over-determined by the Johannine definition of Jesus as God and spends his days, writing and talking, to convince others that Jesus is God. He writes with passion to exalt the Johannine Gospel as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He does not subscribe to the more liberal and broader Christian concept expressed in the Gospel of Thomas (also a contemporary witness like John) that God is a presence active in all human beings — concept that would go counter to the conventional belief that God dwells only in Jesus. Predictably, the Nicene Council rejected the Gospel of Thomas because if God lives in all other human beings then Jesus cannot be the unique and sole representative of God on earth.

But Mr. Jayaweera, following the official version of Christianity endorsed by the 300-odd bishops who met in Nicea in 325 A.D., is not inclined to accept the Thomasian, or any other interpretation of Christianity and insists that all on earth should follow Jesus and only Jesus if they aspire to be liberated. Consequently, he accepts the conventional Christian dogmas, complete with Satan, the Fallen First Man – "the cause of all problems" – and Jesus as the God who came down to redeem Man from original sin "through the redemptive power of the Cross". He believes in the Eucharist – the act of "eating the flesh of God (the wafer) and drinking his blood" (in the wine) — as a necessary redemptive ritual. In short, he views the Biblical tales of what happened in Palestine 2005 years ago as a divine drama in which God came down and sacrificed Himself to save mankind. (Feminists, please include womankind also into this. Thanks),

But history does not consider this as a divine drama. History has recorded too many dissident ideologues, in diverse cultures and in various times, who bucked the system and ended up in one or the other form of death executed ruthlessly by the ruling elite or mob. Jesus happens to be one of the many ideological dissidents who was crucified for his opinions that went against the established order of the day. Before Jesus, Socrates too had to pay this price in Greece. He died by voluntarily drinking a cup of hemlock. Joan of Arc was burned on the cross. The persecution of ideological mavericks is a common story repeated over and over again and history does not accept anyone of these as a divine drama.`A0

Unique event

But the Christians believe that this is a unique event. They believe that Jesus was a unique man who was also God. Christians have spent the better part of their lives on earth justifying this contradiction. Mr. Jayaweera calls it The Paradox of Jesus Christ, in one of his evangelical pamphlets. In this pamphlet he asserts the uniqueness of Jesus in the following paragraph: "`85..the one thing that uniquely distinguishes the religion of Jesus Christ from the other religions, is its claim that the only way to get from "here" to "there", the only way man can find deliverance from his unhappy life on earth, is firstly by off-loading on to Jesus`A0 the enormous burden of sin (karma) he has accumulated along the way and secondly by ensuring that the sinner within him (the fallen man, or the First Adam) who has been the perpetrator and carrier of these sins, is crucified and replaced by a new spirit, the Spirit of Christ, (the Last Adam). The central truth of the New Testament is that both these goals may be realized only through faith in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection." – (p. 56, Ibid)

Despite this declaration of salvation through Jesus, Christianity has yet to provide credible evidence to substantiate their claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection been sufficient to redeem man from the agonies and the suffering he has faced throughout human history. When pressed they would take refuge in the other claim that everything will be re-engineered and re-structured`A0 and made perfect after the Second Coming. After waiting for 2005 years, this promise is similar in many ways to Samuel Becketblack drama of "Waiting for Godot".

Christians generally tend to place their bets both in heaven and earth when it comes to deciding on the place and role of Jesus in human history. On the one hand, they claim that he is an integral part of human history and at the same time they claim that he is way above it. However, when it comes to the crunch they emphasize the latter and add, like Mr. Jayaweera, that Jesus is actually God who has come down in human form to change history. However, Christianity has yet to reconcile these dual and contradictory roles and establish that in his divine/human capacity Jesus has liberated the man who descended from Adam – i.e., from sin. In other words, neither his human role nor his divine role has had any decisive impact in changing the course of history.

Fulfilment of coming millennium

In essence, the flow of history before, during and after Jesus has not changed in any significant way to improve the condition of man. Mr. Jayaweera, however, argues that history has been changing in the last few centuries to improve the condition as a part of the fulfilment of the coming millennium promised by Jesus. Perhaps, unwittingly he concedes that these improvements have come about through science and technology. The second part of the argument confirms that science and technology have been doing a better job than Jesus in improving the condition of man. Since science and technology have relieved the burdens of man it is pretty obvious that it was man’s rationality that worked this miracle and not the blind faith in Jesus.

Unarguably, Newtonian and Einsteinian theories have had a greater impact not only in widening the horizons of man’s vision but also in the living conditions. All the miracles of Christianity had come nowhere near the results of a few doses of penicillin in relieving pain and saving lives. No God-Man can walk into a hospital and ease the suffering of patients better than a doctor or a qualified nurse. Besides, science has performed miracles greater than that of the claims of any God-Man. Which other God-Man has enabled every man – including sinners – to fly, or dive deep into the sea, or to break through the laws of gravity and fly into outer space?

Certainly, science is yet to advance and achieve greater results for mankind. Nevertheless, even in this state of imperfection, science has provided convincing results to put to shame all the miracle-makers. Jesus, for instance is said to have walked on water which Bernard Shaw thought was an exaggeration of the fact that he could swim. But none of his witnesses has ever reported that he could fly, dive deep into the ocean, or shoot through space and return to earth – acts which any ordinary citizen can perform today. It is clear that the "miracles" performed by Jesus are very limited compared to the "miracles" of science. For instance, Christian Barnard has given a new lease of life to millions of Christians and sinners by performing the first heart operations without asking anyone to follow him to the ends of the earth. Jesus was able to grant an extension of life only to Lazarus — and that too only according to John.

The equitable generosity of science is that it is available to believers and non-believers alike. Oddly enough, the "miracles" of Christianity are not available to all Christians, despite the multitude of prayers and commitment to Jesus. It is granted only to a select few. But penicillin is available to believers and non-believers. Here Christians step in and claim credit for the work of man. They claim that it is also the work of God. That is how God works, they argue. If that is so why didn’t Jesus, who was also the all-knowing God, produce penicillin during his time and save the pain and lives of those who died without it? Wouldn’t that have been more benign and effective than just raising just one man from the dead and leaving the rest of his contemporary population to die without any help? In any case, where was Jesus when Lazarus died the second time? Besides, Jesus could not save himself from the cross. He cried out: "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?" Christians argue that that too was the work of God. They argue that God came down as Man to atone for the sins of man by sacrificing himself to save mankind. They also claim that mankind has been saved by that sacrifice. But there is no evidence or history changing its course and moving in the direction of God.

One other central issue in Christianity contends that man has been given the choice of a free will. God wants man to come on his own free will and love him. He does not want to impose his will on man. But in making this choice man must choose Jesus or he will be condemned to eternal damnation. So is there a free choice in this for man at all? If God is generous enough to give me a free choice why must he be punished for making a choice which doesn’t appease Him?`A0 So is it a free choice or a conditional choice predetermined to serve only HIM and no one else? Why must he insist that all human beings must choose Jesus and not Mohammed, or Buddha or anyone else? And why must they be condemned to eternal damnation for exercising their free will given by God?

In Christianity Man is not free. Man is in chains to God. Man’s only choice is to obey God – and that too through his Son Jesus. You have the freedom to deviate but if you deviate then you go into the permanent Siberia of eternal damnation. This is the freedom offered by Stalin. You are free as long as you build idols for him, worship him, follow him, obey the commands of his factotums, and become his tool. And the more Stalin puts his jackboot into you the more you are asked to believe that he loves you. If there is the slightest hint of deviation then it is followed by accusations of mortal and unpardonable sin against Stalin’s will and executed.

Even those who worship Stalin and obey his commands are not guaranteed a blessed life. Without Stalin’s grace and blessings no one has a future. They are only sure of the ominous knock on the door, the Kafkesque trial and the withering away of body and soul under unbearable pressure of the All Mighty. This point is best illustrated in the following apocryphal anecdote: During World War II an American GI was proudly telling a Soviet soldier that he has the freedom to criticize President Truman to his face until it turns red and can walk out of White House as a free man. The Soviet soldier replied that he too has the total freedom to wag his finger in the face of Stalin and criticize Truman and walk out of Kremlin as a free and decorated man for his services to the revolution.

The arguments and the reasoning of the proponents of Christianity confirm that they have chosen to live in a closed mind which, of course, they think is the only way to serve their God. According to their doctrines, they cease to be Christians if they exercise the freedom given by God. This is the curse of Adam, the First Man. Man should be obedient to God never step out of the prescribed ideological framework to work his way out according to his free will. There is the illusion of free will but if your exercise it you are damned forever. Whether you like it or not, you have to believe that Jesus is the ONLY way for salvation. To put it another way, the essence of Christianity dictates that to pass the exam you have to worship the teacher more than preparing yourself through self-efforts to meet the quality requirements of the final test. This is the only religion in the mainstream which claims that you can pass the exam and cross the barrier by worshipping the teacher. Or to use Mr. Jayaweera’s idiom, you can go from "here" to "there" only if you follow the footsteps of Jesus.

This is not a requirement in other religions like Buddhism, for instance. I can’t get to Nirvana by worshipping or having faith in Buddha. I can’t go from "here" to "there" by offering him flowers or by singing hymns of praise to Buddha. Not only that. I don’t even have to take him seriously, or accept what he says is the truth and yet attain Nirvana. I have the freedom to experiment and choose for myself the course of action which is appropriate for me to go from "here" to "there". I can even use the dhamma as a boat to get across and then throw it away. I owe no obligation to anything – God, man, doctrine or ritual. The responsibility is entirely mine. Of course, I will have to bear the consequences of my good or bad actions (kamma) and even if I commit any bad actions I still have the freedom to work my way out at a later time by striving through my self-efforts. There are many ways to go from "here" to "there" in Buddhism. In Christianity there is only one way – and that is through Jesus. Does this give freedom to man in Christianity?

This is confirmed by Mr. Jayaweera who denounces freedom as arrogant disobedience of man. Here’s the relevant quote: "`85(C)entral to the New Testament vision is the belief that salvation can never be attained through self-effort. Self-effort serves only further to aggregate the false self, the First Adam, who is the root of the problem and produces the opposite effects because in the very act of striving of itself for perfection the false self is resurrected and re-invigorated. In fact the Gospels and the Letters of Paul make very clear that the more man strives after salvation or righteousness through self-effort, by performing good works (acquiring merit, as it is sometimes called) the more he will be sucked back into the world (called ‘sansara’ in Buddhism and ‘maya’ in Hinduism) and become a part of it." (p. 59 - Ibid)

He argues that the self-efforts, the humane acts of compassionate service to all sentient beings, renunciation of worldly attachments, inner purification, self-discipline aimed at mental development to reach a state of higher consciousness etc., will not lead to salvation unless all these are done in the name of Jesus. He adds: "`85.It is this central truth to be grasped in faith, that only the cross of Jesus can put away the old self and only His resurrection can usher in the new Christ-self, that is celebrated by all denominational churches through the sacrament of baptism and in the case of the apostolic churches, through the sacrament of the Eucharist, also called the Mass of Communion." (p 60, Ibid)

Here he reverts to the conventional theory that salvation can come only if (1) you are baptized, (2) accepts the Bible and (3) belongs to a denomination. In other words, he claims that you can be the noblest man, endowed with exceeding compassion for all sentient beings and lead a life as good as Jesus in his role as Man but you will not be saved because you do not fulfil the three criteria (all of which are Church-made) mentioned above. If this is true then he must be a cruel God who subjects man to such an unforgiving and unfair judgement. Why does Christianity blame the poor, helpless creatures created by God when He has all the powers to do what He wants? When is God going to take responsibility for his own creation instead of passing the buck to man? How can this "omnipotent, omniscient and loving God reject creatures of his own creation simply because they do not follow one man who claimed to be his Son? Is God another Stalin?