qatarperegrine | 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....

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(deleted comment)

I'd say we've demonstrated plenty of times that "Divine Revelation" can lead to pretty bad behavior. For instance, the Crusades, certain jihads, or even Joshua's battle.

Well as a ["exclusivist"] Jew, I would say the Crusades and Jihad are just clear examples of claimed Revelation, and hardly the Real McCoy, but you had to throw Joshua in there to confound my "easy answer" option. ;-) So for starters I'll say that we Jews, have rather strict rules on what a claimed prophet can and can not claim, and how to test the validity of a prophet. Obviously, from our POV, none of the various Popes with their ex cathedra statements, nor any Immams, qualify. Regarding Joshua, you are also making the statement that assumes his decimating the Canaanites was actually a Bad Thing [Tm]. Current archaeological evidence pretty much supports the Biblical claims that these nations had sunk far beyond "redemption" with their depredations especially in context of murdering their own children, as human sacrifices. They had managed to combine the Three Cardinal Sins, while "keeping it all in the family", and this in the "name of G-d". You bet G-d is going to be steamed!

In any case, the above was not my point at all, as I was using the term "Divine Revelation" NOT in the present-progressive context of prophesy (which is always the exception to the general order of the world), but in context of G-d having to clearly define The Law for us humans (i.e. Give us the Torah), because we are clearly incapable of knowing "what is Right" by ourselves.

He says that everything we desire, we can fulfill...

Like WOW!? I know C.S. Lewis was weird, but that is just so totally bizarre and twisted, from a Jewish POV. Reducing our tendency to seek the Divine to the level of an "animal urge"? That's almost as pathetic as the proponents of The G-d Gene (see referenced articles). Never mind that his metaphor is so incredibly flawed, what if he don't have any food, or are still single? His metaphors and parables are usually superb, if often hard for a Jew to stomach (I loved the near-pagan Space Trilogy, but couldn't stand Narnia [Whoa

qatar! Please put DOWN that pitchfork!])

I think he blames the Devil for the perversions we come up with.

Blame it all on the Devil! Yeah, WTG. :-D We Jews don't believe in the Adversary at all, especially in this context, as it is G-d Almighty that comes out and puts the "blame" clearly at our own feet - "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21). Back to your interpretation of "Divine Revelation", when Christian zealots tell that "Jesus talks to them" and guides them in their daily lives, I am always compelled to ask "How do you know this internal 'guiding voice' is that of Jesus, and not your natural Inclination for Evil?"

On closer examination I see that indeed that essay is worded that way, but from memory and checking various other online sources (none concise enough to link to), I am almost certain this prohibition applies to ALL murder. It is possible that Rabbi Kaplan worded it this way, specifically because this was a common actual tactic of non-Jews to coerce Jews into murder, meaning this was the prevalent situation, that people would be familiar with.

If G-d created in us a built in need/urge to seek [alignment with] G-d, wouldn't this in turn tip the scales of Free-Will? If we are compelled to seek G-d, how we truly be said to have chosen this, or conversely how free are we then to choose to contravene G-d, and sin?

In that Genesis quote I bring above, G-d, at the time of The Flood, isn't attributing our "sinful nature" to the "Fall", but saying this is innate in Man's Nature, i.e. this isn't the result of the fall, but it's cause.

The interpretation of Satan hasn't changed much at all, over time. As our perception of Satan's job, is inherent in the actual meaning of Satan's name, as this FAQ clearly explains.

The problem: how do us lowly humans distinguish legitimate Divine Revelation from claimed Revelation?

I'd argue for Divine Inspiration- genuine experiences with God twisted by human bias. And unfortunately, while I know my experience with God was real and my Divine works are perfect, I assume you're influenced by Satan/lying/insane.

And whatever we desire can be fulfilled... interesting. I'd have to ask what exactly we desire in religion? Answers? Meaning? Love? Comfort? Community? A sense of superiority? Hope? An end to fear of death? A sense of connection with God/the unknown? Some of those can be fulfilled, but I doubt we can ever find, for example, definite answers. I'd say that religions were created for this exact reason- people desired things that couldn't be fulfilled, so they created their own answers to fulfill them.

how do us lowly humans distinguish legitimate Divine Revelation from claimed Revelation?

I addressed this issue in other comments, above and below, in this subthread.

"Reducing our tendency to seek the Divine to the level of an 'animal urge'?"

<putting down the pitchfork>

C.S. Lewis doesn't say that our yearning for G-d is an animal urge. What he says is that G-d created humans the way we are for a reason; everything about us makes sense in some way. We experience hunger as a reminder to us that we need food; we experience thirst as a reminder that we need drink. We experience a longing for G-d as a reminder to us that we need G-d. It's not that it's an "animal urge" (he was unsure as to whether animals had an urge for G-d), it's that G-d created us in such a way that all our needs can be fulfilled.

That doesn't mean all our needs can be (or should be) fulfilled at any given moment. The fact that I'm hungry doesn't logically imply that there's a sandwich in front of me right now (more's the pity), but in C.S. Lewis' mind it does imply that food exists in the universe, because it wouldn't make sense for me to need something that doesn't exist.

I don't think C.S. Lewis sees it as a violation of free will that we have spiritual needs, because (as with any of our needs) we have choices as to how we try to fulfill those needs. Free will simply means that we can eat, have sex, worship G-d, etc. in ways that accord with G-d's will -- or not. That's the sin-as-perversion-of-good thing Leland brought up.

I adore C.S. Lewis, but I disagree with a lot of his theology. It's not at all surprising to me that the Narnia series (particularly the vicarious atonement deal and pretty much everything in The Last Battle) would be practically unpalatable to a non-Christian.

Truth with a capital T

Divine Revelation

Hmm

Re: Divine Revelation

no subject

Re: Divine Revelation