Truth with a capital T

[qatarperegrine]

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....

Comments

counter-intuitive elements

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

Well the most classic example would be the Red Heifer (Numbers 19), which purifies the "unclean", while at the same time, makes unclean the "pure" that come in contact with it, either in preparation or in actual usage. But there are numerous other examples, that from a strictly human POV, don't "make sense" (now or ever).

Re: counter-intuitive elements

[qatar.livejournal.com]

So... the less sense a religion makes, the more divine it is? That's a hard viewpoint to argue against. ;-)

Personally

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I'm much more partial to Frisbeetarianism.

Hardly, LOL

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

My point was NOT that this makes anything more "Divine", but against those that argue that "religion" is something entirely created from mankind's overly fertile imagination. Those people that argue, that much of the Laws laid out, in the Torah (or most any other Coda), are intrinsic the a decent humane society - that any group of humans that wanted to create a lasting and safe culture, would eventually create these same rules, and that the whole "G-d business" is just psychodrama mumbo-jumbo added on top, to get [primitive] societies to follow these rules, that are often inconvenient to the [strong-willed] individual (like theft - it's so much easier than actually working for one's possessions).

Many scholars like to show the similarities between the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and those laid out in the Torah, using this to "prove" that the Torah is not Divine in origin at all, but rather a later redaction/adaptation of these Babylonian Laws, which of course is an unacceptable claim to us. It is laws like the Red Heifer, that lacking in any internal-logic that we can perceive, that I feel most threaten this type of "scholarship".

Re: Hardly, LOL

[seetarkrun.livejournal.com]

The red heifer example sounds more like a priest with OCD than Divine Inspiration to me, though I do believe religion was created by man, so perhaps I'm biased.


On the one hand I agree with you that the main downfall of the analogy is that it assumes that G-d is just passively sitting around waiting to be understood, which is of course not my tradition's understanding of G-d.

I say if God wants us to understand him, he should eliminate all the sects that aren't preaching the Truth. He's got his lightning bolts. He could do it.

Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I say if God wants us to understand him, he should eliminate all the sects that aren't preaching the Truth. He's got his lightning bolts. He could do it.

This would only work if you accept the ancient-European Pagan idea that G-d "benefits" from human "worship", in that then of course G-d, wants to "get the word out" to gain more from his increased number of supplicants.

But this is rather far from the Jewish perception of the relationship between G-d and Creation. In that we believe G-d to be immutable, and that G-d made Creation for our benefit. We believe that Reality [Tm] was specifically designed, in such a way that G-d is "hidden", and that it is through our Free-Will chosing to fulfill G-d's expressed will, by observing the Torah, that G-d is revealed in the World. Also if you check, you will find that most of the commandments in the Jewish Torah, relate to interactions between humans on the personal and national level. There are very few, that can be thought of as relating to "worship of G-d".

It is our position that the racial human consciousness is constantly evolving. In Biblical times, big pyrotechnic miracles abounded. But even then this was mostly for a rather short period (60 years around the Exodus), with decreasing frequency the later in time you get. But we have since moved beyond that stage in our collective development. Back then, when people were much more simple-minded, miracles were required to counter the rampant idol worship, to show that indeed, while the idols did nothing, there WAS in fact a real Living G-d, that was part of the world. But today, if the world was exposed to a manifest miracle (especially of the "Smiting type" you refer to), then our mission-critical Free-Will would be seriously compromised, in that we would be cowered into following G-d's Wishes, not from our Free Will, but out of fear of Divine Retribution! It is very sad that throughout the ages the Christian Church has consistently used Fear of G-d and Hell-Fire Retribution, as a weapon to control their believers. This has only harmed mankind, and interfered with the Divine Plan.

You might also notice that with one or two rather extreme exceptions (like the overturning of Sodom, and the Exodus), G-d only uses the lightning bolts type of retribution (I don't think actual lightning is ever used, that would be the damn Greeks), against the Jews. This is because the Jews already know that G-d is manifest, and their Free-Will would not be as strongly effected, considering that, already knowing, they had Chutzpah enough to go against G-d's Will.

Re: Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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?

Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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. ;-)

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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.

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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. ;-)

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"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.

Re: Hardly, LOL

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"...against those that argue that 'religion' is something entirely created from mankind's overly fertile imagination..."

OK, as long as you know I'm not one of those. I don't think religion is a result of an overly fertile imagination but a response to real experiences with the Divine. (And anyway, our overly fertile imaginations are God-given in the first place.) I think my only disagreement with you here is that I'm unwilling to say that this is true for Judaism and not for other religions. :-)

But of course, dear friend

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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".

Re: But of course, dear friend

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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. :-)

Say again?

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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?

Re: Say again?

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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?

Paths

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Paths

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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. :-)

The Kuzari

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: The Kuzari

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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