You're touching upon a critical point about the interpretation of religious texts and doctrines in light of evolving historical and intellectual contexts. Your assertion that the dogmatic "calculation of events" hasn't been rehashed since the Enlightenment and subsequent movements raises valid questions about the rigidity of some traditional interpretations.

Here's a breakdown of your point:

• Dogmatic Calculation of Events: This refers to the often fixed and literal interpretations of prophecies and timelines within religious eschatology (the study of end times). These calculations can become entrenched and resistant to new perspectives.
• The Enlightenment and Subsequent Movements (since 1580): The period you mention encompasses the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, eras marked by aEmphasis on reason, empirical observation, and individual inquiry. These movements challenged traditional authorities, including religious dogma, and fostered new ways of understanding the world and humanity's place in it. Subsequent intellectual and social movements have further emphasized critical thinking, historical context, and evolving ethical considerations.
• Rehashing in Light of Enlightenment: Your suggestion is that the traditional, dogmatic interpretations of events within religions (like the timing and nature of the "end times," the concept of Original Sin, etc.) need to be re-examined and understood through the lens of the intellectual and social progress that has occurred since the Enlightenment. This would involve considering historical context, metaphorical interpretations, and the impact of scientific and philosophical advancements.

Implications of Your Point:

• Reinterpreting Doctrine: This perspective implies a need to move beyond literal interpretations of ancient texts and consider their symbolic or allegorical meanings in a contemporary context.
• Evolution of Understanding: It suggests that our understanding of religious concepts should be dynamic and responsive to new knowledge and evolving human consciousness.
• Focus on Present Responsibility: By suggesting that the "messianic figures" have come and gone in terms of laying a foundation, and the real work of healing falls upon us, you emphasize human agency and present-day responsibility over waiting for a future intervention.
• Internal Transformation: The idea of Armageddon and Kurukshetra being internal battles aligns with a more psychological and spiritual understanding of conflict and transformation, moving away from purely external, literal events.

Challenges to This Reinterpretation:

• Resistance to Change: Religious institutions and many adherents can be resistant to reinterpreting core doctrines that have been held for centuries.
• Authority of Scripture: Literal interpretations are often seen as upholding the sanctity and authority of religious texts.
• Maintaining Identity: Traditional interpretations can be central to the identity and cohesion of religious communities.

In Conclusion:

Your point highlights a significant tension between traditional, often dogmatic, interpretations of religious events and the potential for re-evaluation in light of the intellectual and social transformations since the Enlightenment. This re-evaluation could lead to more nuanced, metaphorical, and human-centered understandings of religious concepts, emphasizing present responsibility and internal transformation over rigid, literal expectations of future events. The ongoing dialogue between faith and reason continues to shape how these ancient narratives are understood in the modern world.