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

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. :-)

Re: Paths

[susancalvin.livejournal.com]

It seems like there are people reading this thread who are much more knowledgeable than I am, but I saw these questions and thought "Ooh, ooh, I can take those!" So, here's my best shot:

1) I don't think anyone believes that you can't convert to Judaism. Ruth, the ancestress of King David (and through him, the Messiah), was a convert. In fact, most of our philosophy about conversion comes from the book of Ruth. What these Orthodox Jews do believe, as far as I know, is that, the modern world being what it is, they don't trust the validity of any conversions currently being performed.

I know several people who were converted by my Local Orthodox Rabbi, and the process they underwent was about a year of extensive study of the laws that they would have to take on as Jews, followed by an oral examination by the Beis Din, the religious court. Once they passed, they take a dunk in a ritual bath and get a certificate basically saying "The Rabbinate of Pittsburgh certifies that so-and-so has undergone a valid conversion."

But here's where it gets sticky. My LOR is Modern Orthodox, and so people who study under him learn his (Moden Orthodox) philosophy and rulings. Which is good enough for the vast majority of Jewish communities in the world. But there are a few ultra-Orthodox communities who would disagree with the stringencies or leniencies that he teaches. So a convert who studied with him didn't really learn and take on the law, as they see it. Therefore the conversion isn't valid.

2) This is one of those things that comes from Ruth. If you look, when Ruth told Naomi that she wanted to return to Israel with her ("whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy G-d my G-d"), Naomi tries three times to dissuade her.

The main idea is just what kahnman said. Following the Noahide laws is an equally valid path. Once someone becomes a Jew, they can't choose to "un-obligate" themselves from all of the commandments. Why take on so many extra laws when it doesn't gain you anything?

3) Because G-d didn't command it of you. And who are you to decide that G-d chose the wrong path for you?

Re: Paths

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Cool; thanks for joining in. :-)

So, from a non-Jewish perspective, the "why take on so many extra laws" argument makes a lot of sense. But I assumed that seeing the laws as a burden would be part of the Western view of legalism rather than the Jewish one. I mean, if there's nothing better about following those laws than NOT following them, then why do Jewish people follow them? OK, see #3, you follow them because that's the path G-d chose for you... but why would G-d choose an extra-hard path for some people if there's an easier path that's just as good? If, like Shmuel says, living the laws in the Torah makes G-d manifest in the world, then isn't following those laws better than just following the Noahide ones? Or is part of being the Chosen People that only a certain percentage of the population needs to follow those laws to make G-d manifest? (The analogy that comes to mind is the Christian imagery of the church as the leaven that affects the whole dough, but given the Hebrew Bible leaven imagery I don't imagine it translates well.)

Oh Mama! Good questions, Attentive One.

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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."

Re: Oh Mama! Good questions, Attentive One.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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?

Not so much "more able"

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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...

...Continued...

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: ...Continued...

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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?

* Headache *

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: * Headache *

[qatar.livejournal.com]

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?

That too

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Paths

[foobart.livejournal.com]

followed by an oral examination by the Beis Din,

I must be really tired, because my first thought upon reading this was: what, they make sure you have all your teeth?

And it took me upwards of a minute to parse it the right way...

<sigh>

Re: Paths

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

Why take on so many extra laws when it doesn't gain you anything?

While this is one of the reasons, it is actually secondary, in that it considers what is best for the, as yet non-Jewish, potential convert. What is MUCH more important from the communal Jewish POV, is to ensure that the potential convert is very sincere in their wish to be Jewish, and fully observant as such. As I explained directly above the comment you responded to, Judaism has a "group contract" with G-d, so before "allowing" anybody to "join the group", we will want to ensure that they intend [to the best of their abilities], to uphold their "contractual obligations". A Jew that sins, reflects badly on ALL other Jews as well. So why ask for trouble, and bring in insincere converts! This is why, BTW, that Orthodox Jews in principal reject as invalid, [almost all] conversions done by non-Orthodox Movements. Because these movements as such, do not observe the Law as we see it, let alone require this of their "converts" or educate them properly with regard to the Law.

A more mundane parallel, would the Bar of Law requiring potential Lawyers, to pass an Ethics exam, before being allowed to "practice law". The Bar [in theory] doesn't want the legal profession to be disgraced...

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.