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....

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But I assumed that seeing the laws as a burden would be part of the Western view of legalism rather than the Jewish one.

Yes and no. We freely acknowledge that "bearing" these commandments is not at all easy. Thus a burden! BUT we refer to "it" as the "pleasant burden", i.e. one we carry gladly. It was for this purpose that we were created and Chosen.

I mean, if there's nothing better about following those laws than NOT following them... but why would G-d choose an extra-hard path for some people if there's an easier path that's just as good?

You are comparing Apples and Oranges. These two options are equally valid for the respective "walkers", but you make the hidden assumption that the two types of "walkers" are basically the same. They are not at all. [ Disclaimer: The following is another specific topic is another I try to avoid, for it's potential to offend non-Jews. But you've been very good regarding other such in the past, so... ] As you yourself say (acute that) - This is where the special status of the Jewish Nation, as G-d's Chosen comes into play. It is because of the special relationship of Abraham, in "discovering" G-d (very extensive exegesis) in an entirely idolatrous world, and in his absolute devotion to obeying G-d, even at the apparent ultimate personal cost of everything that G-d promised him, in being willing to throw away his entire hard lifework (fighting against murder and human sacrifice among other things), simply because G-d requested this of him, in the form of sacrificing his only son. In passing this devotion on to his descendants, that he enabled us to be innately different from everybody else, and stand above the world on the moral scale.

The term Chosen People [Tm] is actually a Christian term, that we have picked up on in English. The proper term, mentioned in the Torah is {Ahm Segula}, which roughly translates as "the innately-special nation". {Segula} refers to that unique essence in a thing that makes it unique. So we where Chosen, not because G-d picked a name out of a hat, but because we are special, and it was only us that could have been "Chosen". The Christians of course prefer to ignore this, and in deliberately using the term Chosen People, seek to say "G-d initially chose them, but they failed as such, so now he's Chosen US instead..." It is because of our innate specialness, that we being more spiritually able, than everybody else, are given the task of walking the more difficult path. In this recent thread here, this person

morganie seems to me, to be whining about the difficulty of actually observing something as fundamental as the Jewish meta-law of "loving our neighbor". I was sorely tempted to respond with "well that's because you were never meant to observe these laws, and in general lack the innate ability to do so." But I bowed out instead (also her previous comments were making me gag).

the Christian imagery of the church as the leaven that affects the whole dough

The Jewish imagery for this comes straight from G-d - "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." (Exodus 19:6 KJV). THIS is the fulfillment of our purpose with regard to the entire world - As a priest to his community, so is our nation to the world. Another related expression is us being a "Light unto the Nations."

I'm still trying to figure this out. :-)

So Jewish people are more spiritually able than non-Jewish people. How did that happen? Wouldn't God have had to make you more spritually able in the first place, in which case that would be part of the choosing?

What really confuses me is the conversion then. I could understand (although, obviously, not accept) a viewpoint that said that the Jewish NATION was more spiritually able, but that seems like it would make conversion difficult. If Person X converts to Judaism, do they somehow GAIN that spiritual ability? Or is the whole point of the dissuasion process that you want to make sure that only the fluke non-Jews who ARE spritually able are allowed to convert?

And then, getting down to brass tacks.... Well, I think here's the best way I can say it. One of the Jewish objections I've heard about the messiahship of Jesus is if he really was the messiah, it would be objectively knowable: there would be objective differences in the way the world works that would be obvious to everybody, right? I think I have an analogous problem with this idea that Jews, and only jews, have an innate ability to love their neighbor. If that were true, shouldn't I see an objective difference between Jews and non-Jews? But I don't see, objectively, that Jews are more loving of their neighbors than non-Jews. (I was going to insert a snide comment about land-grabbers here, but I think we can just take it as read, no?) So what does it mean to say that Jews have this spiritual ability that non-Jews (in general, at least) don't have, if that difference isn't visible from outside?

But rather, all humans have the same potential for greater affinity with G-d, and with us Jews, this potential was then realized.
The brief run-down: In Genesis 5, we see recorded the first ten generations. In each generation we have a singularly unique individual who was extremely long-lived, had a single son like himself, and "begot sons and daughters" - perfectly normal people. Following that, in Genesis 6:2, we are told that the "Sons of G-d", "took them wives, whomsoever they chose." Verse 3, is, for G-d, the "breaking point", in which he rules that no man shall live such long lives any more. Verse 4, then refers to "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown" as the Nephilim - those that have "fallen". This "falling" is the final straw for G-d, who then decides to wipe the slate clean with the flood, and start over. G-d's initial intention was that these ten special Sons of G-d, would be mentors and inspiration for their "normal offspring" - the rest of Humanity, and in a sense everybody would be "Jewish". But when it was these very mentors that were as depraved as everybody else, the whole game-plan swamped, and something new tried. Rather than a single focal point of Divine contact, am entire leading nation would be created. Are you familiar with the story of Abraham being cast into the furnace by Nimrod (Search for furnace, here- Abraham Breaks Idols). Abraham "discovers" G-d on his own, meeting his potential, we then have a further "sorting" process, in which Ishmael and Esau, are rejected from the fold, until finally Jacob passes on the special path the all of his sons, the Twelve Tribes, and thus the Jewish Nation is born as with that "innately special" status.

If you consider this as potential, then there is no problem with non-Jews joining the fold through conversion - they have shown they have the required dedication and are willing to undergo the trials this entails, to also meet their full potential.

GAAH, I'm all out of time. Will continue this tomorrow night...

On to your "brass tacks". With regard to Jesus, it's not so much as that objective reality would fundamentally change. The Talmud clearly states that the only objective change will be the lack of our "bondage to foreign-governments" (which also obviously hasn't come about yet). The specific objections to Jesus claims at being the Messiah, resolve on his complete failure to meet the initial criteria required of "Messiah candidates" - having a valid lineage to the House of David, and a qualified Torah Scholar, and his subsequent failure to actually fulfill the actions required in the job-description - Restore the Kingship, return the "outcasts" of Israel, and restore the Temple and it's Service, and "fight the wars of G-d" (See Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Laws of Kings & Wars, Chapters 11-12 (Questionable English translation, or the Hebrew Source). Beyond that, you have the whole issue of Jesus as a Prophet, who in wishing to make changes in Torah Observance, marks himself as a False Prophet, and worthy of death.

Regarding your analogy to [observable] Jews, as I explained above, it's not so much an "ability" but a greater potential. The specific reason that I did not comment back to that woman about her inability to love her neighbor, would be because this would be a mostly false accusation, and also completely out of line. For a Jew, it should be potentially easier to "love a neighbor", than for a non-Jew, this doesn't mean that, at present, all Jews, or even a majority, actually meet this potential, or even try to meet it. This is a great shame to our record. This is also not to say that it is easy being a properly behaving Jew, is it not all all easy. But having this potential for greater affinity with G-d, we gladly accept this hardship. The Talmud tells us, that in the Future to Come, in the Messianic Era, the gentile nations will reproach G-d in saying "We too would have kept the Torah, had you given it to us", in response to which G-d will give them an easy trial commandment, that of living in a "booth" for seven days, on the holiday of Succoth. Then G-d, to test their resolve, will "take the Sun from it's sheath", making it unbearably hot, forcing everybody out of the booths into their regular homes. The question is then asked, in the Talmud "but the Jews too, will have left their booths, because one who suffers in the fulfillment of this Mitzvah is exempt from it", to which we answer that in leaving, the Jews will be sorry for the lost opportunity, while the gentiles will kick their booth in anger. It is this difference in attitude, that is embodied in our potential, that sets us apart. When this potential is not only not-met, but abused, we, to our great shame, can become the "best at being the worst" (e.g. often the most ruthless or successful Gangsters, were Jewish).

Wait a second!

Either:
"all humans have the same potential for greater affinity with G-d, and with us Jews, this potential was then realized"

or
Jews "hav[e] this potential for greater affinity with G-d" but may or may not "actually meet this potential."

These seem like two contradictory ideas. Do all people have the same potential and Jews have just realized it, or do Jews have more potential, which may or may not be realized?

I haven't been very clear on this, have I? :-( Well I don't often have cause to describe the exact mechanism involved in such detail [background cries of "Cop-out!"]

I think it's something of both. :-D You could say that due to our realization of this potential, and subsequently being "Chosen", this potential is reinforced, perhaps making it easier to now realize. Also it is obvious that this potential is not quite equal in everybody. Initially it was the first-born that were to serve as the Priesthood, but due to their direct involvement in the Golden Calf fiasco, they forfeited this position, in favor of [my] Tribe of Levi (Go, Team Go!), who did NOT participate, thus showing they were more suited for this important job. Within the Tribe of Levi, we further have the descendants of Aharon alone, who are worthy of being priests.

I wonder if part of the potential/actualization confusion is community vs. individual? It sounds like you're saying that the Jewish community, rather than a given individual, actualized its potential in Biblical times, and that because of this God made a special covenant with the Jewish people, and that individual Jews today have a heightened potential because you are the inheritors of this spiritual history.

Maybe?

But then it doesn't take the ability to convert into account...
Maybe I'll just ask the Rabbi. I've been throwing him some weird curves lately.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Truth with a capital T

Oh Mama! Good questions, Attentive One.

Re: Oh Mama! Good questions, Attentive One.

Not so much "more able"

...Continued...

Re: ...Continued...

* Headache *

Re: * Headache *

That too