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

Give me a break! ;-)

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

it's a different story from 2,000,000 people making a complete break with historical religion

I never said, nor meant to imply that the revelation at Sinai, was a "complete break" from anything. Only that claims regarding an event that was said to have been experienced by 2,000,000 people (and that their immediate or near ancestors accepted as Truth), is something much harder to "fake" than some other founding event for other Revelations, such as a shepperd living in a cave for 15 years, or that of a teacher to 12. The fact that the [early] Jews, weren't quite as thoroughly observant of this Revelation, as one would wish, doesn't detract from the validity "strength" of the event, only goes to show how ornery we are, or taking it straight from G-d - "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people." (Exodus 32:9).

When I spoke of Jesus accepting the divinity of the Torah, I wasn't referring to good ol' heretic you (Burn, Heretic! Burn!), but to "mainstream" cross-denominational Christianity (as if any uch thing existed). In order to make any claims regarding Jesus as the Messiah, whether by Jesus himself, or later, one must first posit that "being the Messiah", and that which "one is Messiah of" must both be Divine in origins. Otherwise Jesus would just be the latest "layer" of flapdoodle on top of this compost pile.

Re: Give me a break! ;-)

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you mean by divinity here. Do you mean that if Jesus thought the Torah was divine, he must have been right? Because I don't think even mainstream Christianity would argue that Jesus was necessarily omniscient during his earthly life.

Or do you mean that if the Tanakh isn't divine, then there is no prophesy of a messiah, and thus his messiahship is meaningless?

The later

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

If the Torah, and our Bible is not divine, then Jesus himself doesn't have a leg to stand on, as a Messiah.

Re: The later

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I think we're increasingly talking past each other here. :-) I think the Torah and Hebrew Bible in general is a response to divinity, and that Jesus' life was lived out in response to that same sense of divinity. I think that Jesus understood God and his own life and purpose in the context of the Hebrew Bible. I don't think I have to see the Torah as being literally written by God in order to make sense of that.

It occurs to me that I've probably given you the impression that I find the Torah worthless, just because I like to argue so much. ;-)

My point was

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

regarding Jesus and the divinity of the Torah, goes back to the initial comment you made regarding the potential for giving Judaism a major "make-over" in the times of Hilkia, as we initially discussed at the start of this sub-thread. My claim was that any Christian who made this claim would be shooting themselves in the foot! By undermining the branch that Jesus stands on.

I hardly feel you think the Torah is worthless. I have find you to be highly reverent throughout. You are also well read, thoughtful and highly argumentative. I like that!

Re: My point was

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm not entirely sure what branch you see Jesus as standing on that would be undermined (sawn off, maybe?) by the claim that, say, Deuteronomy was written in the reign of Josiah. Jesus may have seen the Law as having been written by Moses, but don't think he saw it as having been written by G-d -- otherwise why would he have spent so much time saying, "Moses told you x, but I say y"? So I don't see questioning the divinity of the Torah as undermining Jesus. (As an aside, I am using what I understand to be your definition of "divinity, " which sounds to me like what Christians call verbal plenary inspiration. I don't necessarily believe that the Torah has to have been written by God in order to be divine.)

I think I, personally, see Jesus more as standing on the Prophets than on the Law. Now that I think about it, in fact, I think my tendency is to see the Prophets as more divine than the Law, whereas your perspective is obviously the other way around.

Re: My point was

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I think my tendency is to see the Prophets as more divine than the Law, whereas your perspective is obviously the other way around.

Wow! I never thought of it that way, but now that you've said it, it does seem pretty obvious, that this is the fundamental difference between our view-points. But lets try and clarify this point a wee bit further...

How much of this "my tendency" is you, and how much is basic Christian "Dogma". Think of it this way, as we've discussed before Christianity puts considerably more emphasis on The Message and extremely less on the Law itself. It also places much more emphasis on Jesus being the Messiah, than of what he claimed to be messiah. This means that the Prophets, being fellow "Messengers", and rarely dealing with the actual nitty-gritty details of Law ^[1], would certainly take much greater precedence over the Torah, which would take a significantly lesser role (if any at all). The Torah also contains a plethora of details, many of which, are "inconvenient" for the Church.

There are practically NO Biblical accounts of people actually doing the Commandments. This doesn't mean that people didn't observe the Law, only that doing so, wasn't considered worthy of record, as it was "background noise" and taken for granted.

Re: My point was

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I try hard never to claim to speak for Christianity, but I think you may be right that this is more a Judaism/Christianity difference than just a you/me difference. It seems to me, off the top of my head, that most of the time Jesus quoted the Law it was to turn it on its head (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) whereas most of the time he quoted the Prophets it was to affirm their message (e.g. Luke 4). Of course there are major exceptions to this, like his quoting Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 as the greatest commandments -- and I think Christians do tend to forget that these were quotes and not Jesus' own words -- but for the most part I think you may be right that Christianity has a harder time connecting to the Law than the Prophets. When I read the Torah I come away with all sorts of questions (Is this really what God wants for us?) whereas when I read the Prophets -- well, it's not that they're easy to listen to, but that it's easier for me to hear them as reflecting God's will.

While we're talking about the Law and Prophets -- what is your preferred name for your scriptures? The usual term in seminaries is "Hebrew Bible," as it's less derogatory than "Old Testament." In my Hebrew class we often said "Tanakh," which I think is a fun term. (For other readers: it's an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim -- the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.) I've also heard miqra, which it occurs to me is probably from the root qara' and therefore analogous to the Arabic word qur'an..... What do you call it?

Tanakh is best

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

"OT" is by far the most annoying, but the most natural to adherents of the "NT". I tend to have small warning bells go off, whenever I see/hear the term "Hebrew X", where X is anything but the Hebrew language itself. The same hold for terms such as "Israelites", because most often I see these in a context to try and differentiate or separate the "Hebrews", "Israelites" or whatever you call the "proto-Jews" and the present day Jews. It is quite likely that I am overly defensive or sensitive to these issues. Because most people are not familiar with the term Tanakh, I often say "Jewish Bible", but from my POV, that is somewhat redundant. ;-)

I doubt this thread has [many] other readers, long as it's been going on. :-)