qatarperegrine | Truth with a capital T

Entry tags:

Truth with a capital T

The phrase "All roads lead to the same place" came up in conversation yesterday, and I've been thinking more about it.

I don't, in fact, believe that all roads lead to the same place. The analogy is usually, I think, that the religions of the world are all paths leading up the same mountain, which is to say that they all converge on the same end goal. But is the goal the same in every religion? I don't think even the major religions share a vision of what it means to attain spiritual fulfillment -- becoming a boddhisatva is not quite the same as becoming a saint, or a tirthankara, or a Muslim prophet. I suppose one could say (to use Christian language) that the goal they converge upon is God, but I don't find God-as-object-of-quest to be a satisfying metaphor for religion. And this is ignoring the even further question of whether all religious beliefs and practices even lead towards and not away from what I consider to be holy.

I really don't think you have to believe that all religions are interchangable in order to have a profound respect for other religious traditions. I'm not sure you even have to see them as equal, to use the contested word of the week.

My central image of the relationships of the religions is more like a story I heard from Rev. Ben Silva-Netto at a training for Methodist lay speakers in California. He asked us to imagine a room full of art students circled around a model in the middle of the room. Because they all see the model from a unique perspective, and because they come to the assignment with their own personal background and skills, each of them portrays the model differently. One paints a portrait, one draws a silhouette in charcoal, one sketches the model's hands. At the end of the assignment, when the model has left the room and they start looking at each other's work, they are sure to find areas of disagreement in their portrayals. People sitting in very differerent places are likely not even to be able to recognize that each other's pictures are of the same model. (This was certainly true when I took an art class in college!)

Rev. Silva-Netto used this as an analogy for the theological task. When we start trying to explain how we understand "Truth with a capital T" we are likely to disagree with each other. And if I see my own painting rather than the model itself as the Truth, I am likely to see my neighbors' portrayal of the Truth as wrongheaded. But this is only because my own perspective is limited, and I am failing to recognize that the model itself exists in one more dimension than my version of it. So I see my version and my neighbor's as mutually exclusive, not realizing that our disagreements and contradictions don't have to be resolved, that our observations may both be valid even when they conflict. And, in fact, if I were to try to make the draw-er of the silhouette buy into my vision of the model's hands, I would be asking that person to go against the Truth that was disclosed to her.

Anyway, this metaphor is not entirely a satisfying metaphor for religion either, because I think God/The Truth/The Tao/Whatever is a lot more than a passive model. But for me it IS a more helpful metaphor for the intellectual, theological aspect of faith, because it explains how we can acknowledge and even learn from other people's visions of the Truth even when they disagree with ours, whereas (in my mind, at least) the paths-up-a-mountain metaphor requires that we ignore the very real differences between the religions.

So I hear a question like "Is Jesus divine?" and I wonder if yes/no is the right approach. I think there is truth in the Christian assertion that God is ultimately revealed through the life and death of Jesus. I think there is also truth in the Muslim assertion that the whole Trinity idea is a little weird. And I don't think it's violating the Christian tradition to see the perspective that might be gained from both sides of an issue; the Bible is, after all, full of different and contradictory perspectives. Was Abraham saved by faith or by works? The Bible includes (at least) two contradictory statements on the matter. I think things like that are an acknowledgement that different intellectualizations of an experience can be useful even when they completely contradict one another.

In Buddhist logic, a and not-a are not the only logical alternatives. Both a and not-a and neither a nor not-a are also logical perspectives. I see value in a both a and not-a approach to Truth: Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, there are spiritual insights we can gain from both positions. Or to be more apophatic, the divine mystery cannot be reduced to either "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is not God." Neti, neti, the Hindus would say: Ultimate Reality is neither simply this nor simply that, but always transcends any formulations we use to describe it. The Tao that can be described in words is not the real Tao.

I wanted to talk more about Christian particularism and the question of whether "Jesus is God" even is the central truth claim of Christianity. (Not to mention whether truth claims are the heart of religion in the first place.) But I think I'll have to leave that for another day....

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Wow, cool post.

"...mission-critical Free-Will..."

I'm not sure I understand what the mission is?

"...considering that, already knowing, they had Chutzpah enough to go against G-d's Will..."

Yeah, that golden calf thing always got me. I mean, G-d is right over there, people! How hard can it be not to fall into idolatry when God is actually present?

Another crucial and Fundamental ;-) disagreement we have, that to me is inherent in the one you mention, is the extent and accuracy of "transmission" and recording of those "real experiences with the Divine". Obviously I believe, that the Torah is a word-for-word record of these, with G-d being the actual author of the Torah (with Moshe "merely" as Scribe), and the Bible being accurate as well. You, obviously to me, can NOT accept this POV, considering your inclusive attitudes and synthesism.

This disagreement derives from the fatc that the Torah is explicitly exclusive of these other "religious traditions". [ insert recurring "Judaism is not a religion" reference ;-) ] So if you accept the Torah as an accurate record, and accept the Torah's inclusiveness and applicability to non-Jews (e.g. the Noahide Laws) then there is no room, or even any actual need for any other "religion".

Sure. And if you accept the Qur'an's inclusiveness and applicability to non-Muslims then there is no room or need for other religions, and so on. :-)

What I do is "simply" structure my sentence, such that repeating G-d's name makes ANY pronoun superfluous, or using the numerical pronoun "oneself" : "It is only through G-d's action that G-d can be known." This can, of course, lead to rather twisted sentences, but I'm insistent about this point.

In Hebrew, because all parts of speech are gendered, we inherently know that the associated gender isn't necessarily that of the described entity or action, so while Scripture, and common usage, uses male pronouns for G-d (most of the time), it is clear that G-d, at least, is entirely gender-neutral!

I wasn't aware that Islam in general, or even specifically the Qur'an, addressed the issue of non-Muslims (except in reference to us Dhimis being mostly "left alone", beyond the head-tax). Does Islam have a "place" and purpose in Allah's Plan for people to remain non-Muslim?

The concept of the Noahide Laws is that non-Jews, have no need to become Jewish, to be "found worthy" and get their due reward. All that is required of a non-Jew is to observe these seven most basic rules, to be considered righteous before G-d. I'm pretty sure this type of "universalism", while likely not unique to Jewish Thought, is NOT present in either Christianity or Islam. Care to correct me?

I do the same thing, as do my parents. When a woman wrote a play about my dad, who is a pastor, she wrote a sermon for the dad-character to give, and in the sermon God was referred to as "Him." I was annoyed at first, but then decided that the fact that a writer had attended his church for years without even NOTICING he wasn't using a masculine pronoun for G-d was a testament to Dad's ability to come up with graceful pronoun-free sentences. :-)

There are some Christians who read the masculine pronoun for G-d in Hebrew and Greek quite literally. They do not, of course, read the feminine pronouns for the ruach and shekhina quite so literally, of course. No bias there. :-)

is to reveal the glory of G-d in this world. This is achieved by observing G-d's rules (in my case the Torah, in yours the Noahide Laws), and overcoming the distractions of this world and our physical nature, in order to submit our will, to G-d's Will. In other words, by setting a personal example of what a person actually BE, in doing so, G-d's Glory becomes manifest. All the rest is just details...

This comment will self-destruct in five seconds.

The Qur'an talks nonstop about non-Muslims! And in parts it is quite accepting of Jews and Christians, indicating that they will be judged by their adherence to the Torah and the Gospel. One of my favorite ayat: "We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So, compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God, and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed." (5:48)

As for that form of universalism in Christianity, I think it exists, although of course Christianity has been more eager than Judaism to condemn non-adherents to hell. But there is a strain of univeralism also. Take Romans 2:14-16: "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." I think this is somewhat a parallel to the Noachide laws: non-Christians can still do the will of God.

I think where Judaism differs from Christianity and Islam is that, in Christianity and Islam, I think these inclusive verses have been seen as applying only to nonbelievers who never heard about the True Faith. Once you've heard about the True Faith, I think the traditional interpretation is that you can't just reject it and keep being a law unto yourself. Whereas Judaism says that non-Jews abiding by the Noachide laws are doing what they're supposed to do, and there's no need for them to convert to Judaism. (Except, of course, that they have to accept the Jewish understanding of what non-Jews should be doing!)

Could you answer a conversation Leland and I were having IRL, and tell me whether you believe it is even possible for a Gentile to "convert" to Judaism? In your mind, what would my (to use me as an example) best spiritual path be? Ought I to be a Jew, or would the best course of action be for me to abide by the Noahide laws (and, presumably, stop talking about this Jesus nonsense. :-) In particular, askmoses says it would actively be WRONG for me to observe the Sabbath. Do you agree?

I hardly think that Judaism is about truth claims of ANY sort. As I've said before, G-d is a "given" (i.e. not a "belief"), and belief in Truths (or anything), is always secondary to the action one does in "support" of these Truths. It wasn't even until Maimonides came along, in the 12th century, and in response to Islam, actually formulated our Thirteen Articles of Faith (and "Faith" is really an inapropriate word here). We had gotten along fine for millennia without them being codified...

Oops, I guess this answers the question I just asked.

OK, so I don't blaspheme (much), murder, steal, commit adultery, or eat the limbs of any creatures, living or dead. I haven't personally established any legal systems, but I'm thinking that's not an individual commandment. I don't think I commit idolatry, except in the sense that I'm as prone as anyone else to treating things other than G-d like they have ultimate significance. Or is Christianity idolatry by definition? :-)

So Leland, this makes me wonder if there can be an alternate version of Pascal's wager, in which one tries to observe all the moral teachings of all the world religions at once. There's a lot of overlap between the seven Noahide laws and Buddhism's Five Precepts, for example.

Don't even get me started about those that choose the literal reading of feminine pronouns for the Ruach and Shekhina, all those damn-fool New-Age Pagans, who wish to claim that we Jews are covert Goddess worshipers all along, or "seek to reclaim the Feminine in the Divine". Which part of "Sexuality is part of being corporally embodied" do they fail to understand?

Makes me want to barf!

Yes, it works both ways. I certainly wasn't arguing that G-d is literally female, either.

I'm still hoping Shmuel will answer this question, but to my understanding most Jews and Muslims would consider it idolatry to see Jesus as part of the Godhead.

Assuming, of course, that Christianity entails seeing Jesus as part of the Godhead. ;-)

I think the principle we use is simply emotional reaction and reason. If something doesn't feel right or doesn't make logical sense, there's no reason to believe it, but no reason to discard the things that do feel right.

The major problem with this is that you are going to constantly be fighting human nature itself. From a purely biological POV, four major "behavioral flaws" can be demonstrated (in increasing order of strength):

"Subjectivity" - In general, our ability to respond to ANY situation, is only through the filter of our previous experiences. Trauma, both emotional and physical, can forever stain this filter, and prevent us from having any sort of coherent ability to know what "feels right". As a secondary-victim of childhood sexual abuse, I can tell you that I will never-ever be able to be "objective" about many issues even remotely related to sexuality, either because at some level I've been "programmed" to perceive them as "normal", or because I over-compensate in the opposite direction.

"Laziness" - Doing anything real, general takes actual effort. This means that animals, humans among them, will generally seek the path of least effort. This means they will be intrinsically inclined to rationalize avoiding doing things, even if, otherwise these things would "feel right".

"Self Gratification" - We are hard-wired such, that we derive varying levels of pleasure from activities such as eating and sexual intercourse, with a direct correlation to how important to survival they are, to both the individual "unit" and the species as a whole. We are quite literally [Endorphin] "junkies" for pleasure. So this too clouds our ability to know what "feels right", in this case because "feels good" can easily take precedence. As every guy knows "A stiff dick has no Conscience"...

"Self Preservation" - The Number #1 "motivator" for all living entities is to continue living, at practically any price. What happens when you conflict this with the mere "feels right"? It rather pales in comparison doesn't it? While the threat of actual death, is generally pretty rare, we often respond strongly to even the most tenuous threats, or potentially threatening situation (such as saving someone's life at personal risk). Do you think this won't impact your ability to know what "feels right"?

While this list bares some parallel to the Catholic list of Seven deadly sins - the first three matching: Anger-Pride, Slot and Gluttony-Lust, I am thinking of them in the sense of biological imperatives (and not "sin"), to show that your "barometer" is inherently incapable of working. I can't think of any biological imperatives that would even remotely match Avarice and Envy, the two that I'm "missing".

You further underestimate the flexibility of human "logic", to rationalize whatever we damn well please. I doubt there are many cultures in human history who were quite as rational, straitlaced and "logical" as the Germans. Yet it was precisely for this reason that they could, through "solid rational science" demonstrate that Jews and certain other minorities such as the Gypsies, were genetically inferior, and that logically, this called for their scientific extermination, to make room for the "superior races". While I DO highly value logic as a useful tool, it is extremely overrated.

This is precisely why Divine Revelation is needed to tell us how to behave. We have proved throughout history, that we are incapable of finding this out for ourselves.

You are correct in saying that #7, creating a court-system is indeed a "communal" requirement. "Christianity" is NOT idolatry "by definition", although some forms of Christianity, mostly Catholicism and certain Eastern branches, are considered Paganic and fall under the idolatry prohibition.

The only problem I see with your "alternate version of Pascal's wager" is from the POV of the other religions. Unlike the Noahide laws and Judaism, most any other religion "that respects itself" includes and exclusivity clause. ;-)

At what point does the idolatry thing kick in?

What is generally lumped under the "Idolatry" label is actually two different, but related, issues. The first more straight-forward is "Iconography" - creating a physical representation of "god(s)", and using this icon as a conduit for worship, or attributing importance to the icon itself. This later includes Catholic icons of "Saints", or the crucifix, even if one does not claim to worship Jesus as divine.

The second issue is that of "Worship of Natural Elements" - of attributing divinity to "Forces" or observable phenomena in Nature, such as Sun, Moon, Stars, Rain or Fertility, Death etc. Even when these entities are NOT worshiped as "the Godhead", but merely as conduits or lesser intermediates to G-d, this is still forbidden, as while potent, these "forces" they are in no way independent of G-d, so one must always "go to the source". We are taught, that this in fact is how "paganism" got started, in that people belittled themselves, and in finding themselves unworthy of "approaching the King", decided instead to "work" through secondary elements.

The only problem I can perceive in, under observance of the Noahide Laws, also studying Religious Visionary of Your Choice, is that this might lead to some rather strange ideas about G-d, and the Divine Plan. As I will keep on stating, the "G-d of the Jews" is rather different from either the Christian or Muslim god. So you might be shooting yourself in the foot, in this sense. Some of those ideas, will almost certainly be Idolatrous in nature.

"Unlike the Noahide laws and Judaism, most any other religion 'that respects itself' includes and exclusivity clause. ;-)"

Diana Eck divides the possible viewpoints a religious person can have on other religions into three types: exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist. An exclusivist stance says, "There is no truth/salvation/whatever outside my tradition." An inclusivist says, "There is truth in other traditions, but it's my tradition's truth." And a pluralist says, "Truth is independent of any of these traditions." The example she gives is actually one from the Jewish perspective: a rabbi in a Chaim Potok novel asks, about a Shinto in prayer, "Do you think our God is listening to him?" An exclusivist says "No"; an inclusivist says, "Yes, but it's still God as we conceptualize God who is doing the listening," and a pluralist says "God isn't 'ours' in the first place."

So, that is all background in order to say: I think there are exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist tendencies in every religion. Judaism has less of an exclusivist tendency than most, but in any religious tradition there are people all along the spectrum.

Once you've heard about the True Faith, I think the traditional interpretation is that you can't just reject it and keep being a law unto yourself.

Precisely. Rather important difference, that. ;-)

tell me whether you believe it is even possible for a Gentile to "convert" to Judaism?

I'm not sure I understand the question? Gentiles convert to Judaism all the time, becoming fully Jewish in the process. More so nowadays than ever before (you're much less likely to get killed in the process by your ex-co-religionists). In fact there are at least two communities here on LJ, specifically for people undergoing the conversion process and "Jews by Choice". I have at least four such converts on my friends-list. If you mean "convert" in the sense of NOT actually becoming a Jew, and only "living as one", then see below.

In your mind, what would my best spiritual path be? Ought I to be a Jew, or would the best course of action be for me to abide by the Noahide laws

As I briefly explained above, in Jewish Thought there are two mutually-exclusive Paths to doing G-d's Will. Being Jewish, and observing the seven universal Noahide Laws, if you are not Jewish. They are both equally valid. I say "mutually-exclusive" because someone born Jewish can't choose to only observe the Noahide Laws, and conversely a Gentile is forbidden to "live as a Jew" as I will shortly elaborate. Note that I say equally valid, not meritorious or rewarding on a personal level (I can't possibly imagine how life under only the Noahide Laws, would feel fulfilling). So it depends what exactly you mean in saying "best". If you feel that inner pull telling you that "being Jewish" is the Real McCoy, and you want to become a "Member Of the Tribe", then go ahead and consult your Local ;-) Orthodox Rabbi. Both he an I, will do our damned best to discourage you, though (This is an actual requirement on us).

and, presumably, stop talking about this Jesus nonsense.

[heavy Austrian accent] This obsession of yours with this dead Jew, IS rather unhealthy, yes? ;-)

askmoses says it would actively be WRONG for me to observe the Sabbath. Do you agree?

Yes! This is straight out of the Talmud. In fact, we touched on this very issue, in our study-class on monday, of a book that I think you might greatly enjoy - The Kuzari: In Defense of the Despised Faith As I have argued before with

aristotle2002 (a Seminarian), our Covenant with G-d, unlike Christianity and Islam, is a "group contract". It only has meaning in context of the collective Jewish Nation. But it goes further than that - When I am fulfilling any specific commandment, this observance is not "mine" but done "on behalf of all of Israel (the nation)" (some of us actually say this is a preparation to the observance). The act itself is entirely meaningless and without merit, without this context. Maimonides even goes as far as ruling, that a Jew who despite continuing to follow the Law, removes themselves from the "public context", has no merit and "has no part of the World to Come" (in Christian terms this means they are "damned", because "by default" all Jews merit this, unless they forfeit).

Similarly, a non-Jew is inherently lacking this collective context, because there aren't a "Member Of the Tribe". So if they knowingly choose to follow our observances, "because this is what G-d commanded", then this too is an Abomination.

The historical premise of this book, is the conversion of the Kingdom of Khazar, to Judaism in the 7th century. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi [11th century] creates the fictional dialog between a Rabbi, and the King of Khazar, regarding Jewish Thought, Christianity and [General] Philosophy, which in turn lead the king and his people to convert. The book is highly polemic, and very insightful into the inner logic of Jewish Thought.

(This was a foot-note to the previous entry, but the comment was too long).

I agree with you that humans are all experts at rationalization, and that logic can't get us everywhere we need to go. (My favorite Greek philosopher is Parmenides, who couldn't logically explain the creation of the universe and concluded, therefore, that it didn't exist.)

But I don't see how we can get out of the predicament that we are forced to rely on our own subjective assessment of the world. There are, for example, countless people alive even right now who claim that they are receiving "Divine Revelation." (And some of them write to me!) Even if I accept the idea of divine revelation, I don't accept that all these people are actually receiving it. So I have to use some kind of criterion to judge whether something is divine or not, right? That criterion may not be entirely logic or entirely gut instinct, but whatever it is it's going to be subjective. (It may be something seemingly objective, like, "Was it approved at the Council of Carthage," but in that case I still subjectively determined that it's the Council of Carthage I give authority to and not the Council of Laodicea.)

So the very fact that divine revelation occurs is not, in and of itself, a way out of the "problem" of subjectivity, unless you are proposing that there is some entirely objective way to know if a given text is divinely revealed.

So, we already talked about in this IRL, but for the record... exclusivist/inclusivist/pluralist is a spectrum, and people aren't necessarily going to be purely one of the three. I think Paul was willing to use the language of inclusivism and even pluralism to sway his Athenian audience. I think Romans 2 is inclusivist, too: there is truth outside our faith, but it's a watered-down version of OUR truth.

The other thing I didn't mention is that I think Eck sees a fourth choice, relativism, as the other end of the spectrum. A pluralist acknowledges other truths but still professes her own truth. The relativist has given up on capital-T Truth entirely.

Where are pluralist views in Christianity? You'll have to read the Eck book. :-) I think there are interpretations of Christian scripture and tradition that encourage pluralism, though. Jesus said he had other sheep not of this fold, and that the Spirit blows where it wills, to give two examples. Those can be interpreted inclusively by saying that Christ's salvific purpose can be accomplished through other faith traditions but that it's still Christ's salvific work and not, say, Amida Buddha's. But I think they can also be interpreted pluralistically by saying: who are we to place limits on how the Divine Presence may have been manifested to those other folds? And if Jesus truly has sheep in other folds, then the ideas of those sheep may be true in their own right, not only true insofar as they imitate the "real" truths that were revealed to us sheep over here.

My understanding is that some orthodox Jews believe that you can't convert to Judaism; either you're a child of Abraham or you're not, I guess. So how does one become a member of the tribe?

And why would you try to dissuade someone from converting?

And how can it be an abomination to do what you believe G-d commands?

I'm even more confused now. :-)

It sounds interesting! I may just add it to my summer reading list.

Well, that's certainly true for my journal, too! In fact, I don't think there's ever been a discussion this intensive on my LJ before.

A further thought:

To me, pluralism is a natural outgrowth of the realization that God doesn't fit in any boxes, even the box labelled "Christianity." Eck quotes John Hicks' idea that pluralism is religion's Copernican revolution. Christian inclusivism is Ptolemaic: it sees other religions as orbiting around, defined in terms of their relationship to, Christianity. (This is CS Lewis' view when he says that other religions are true where they correspond to Christianity and false where they diverge.) Pluralism is the realization that all of the religions orbit around God, not around Christianity.

And I think that, while I can't proof-text to support it, this is a thoroughly Christian idea. Christianity may be my path to the Truth, but if I say that Christianity itself IS the Truth, then IMHO I am committing idolatry. I am worshipping "an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals" (Acts 17:29) rather than the true and living God who is infinitely larger than my conception of God can possibly be. (The "God behind God," to use Tillich's language.) As a Christian I cannot say, "I have God totally figured out, and am competent to give an absolute judgment of others' opinions of God based on how similar they are to mine."

Romans 14:4 says, "Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall." If, as a Christian, I am a servant of God, then I cannot presume to judge, in a final sense, my fellow servants. On a practical level I may need to decide whether I agree with them and whether their ideas work for me, but if I dare to say that their ideas are False with a capital F, then I am in effect saying that I am the lord before whom they stand or fall. And that is profoundly un-Christian. IMHO. Not that I'd, you know, presume to judge it so. ;-)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4

Truth with a capital T

Re: Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

But of course, dear friend

Re: But of course, dear friend

LOL on the pronouns

Say again?

Re: LOL on the pronouns

Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

Re: Say again?

Truth Claims

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

It works both ways

Re: It works both ways

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

Human barometers

no subject

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

no subject

Paths

The Kuzari

Re: Human barometers

no subject

Re: Paths

Re: The Kuzari

no subject

no subject