[META-THREAD] The Religion Thread: Discuss Here Please!

[draelyc]

:thu:Thanks!

De nada

somehow... I think that we both have trouble with teh short and sweet post:cop:

Yawp, busted.

ahh... keep in mind that it is not just the Genesis stories that I reject... but the whole texts all together.

Oh, no problem, mang ~ I totally get that. It's just that the Gen. stuff makes a really handy specific example to work from, y'know?

Until recent scientific discoveries... the Genesis story WAS the ACTUAL way that existence happened... according to systems of belief that followed the Biblical descriptions.

Not really.

This is what I've been trying to explain so many times, in the various threads that all got merged here... There were quite a few early authorities, including some Church Fathers like Origen and his mentor, St. Clement of Alexandria, who not only recognized the primarily allegorical nature of Scripture (***all*** Scripture), but actually *wrote* about that in their commentaries, letters, and essays on Scripture.

It's hard for us, in the modern world, to appreciate just how enlightened and sophisticated the ancient world really was. Personally, I think one of the reasons for it's so difficult for us is that the Dark Ages in Europe really cut us off from our cultural roots and heritage pretty thoroughly. Even those who worked so diligently through those dark times to preserve the knowledge (or at least, the information and writings) of the ancient world lost the keys to understanding ~ the intellectual and cultural contexts required to interpret those preserved writings properly ~ and so *all* they could do was preserve...

The theological literalism we're talking about here has its roots, I think, in that phenomenon. HOWEVER, the kind of mindless, aggressively anti-science, belligerent literalism (often known as "biblicism") that we see in America today didn't really come into being until the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Whew. My point, in all of that, is to say that even before our modern, scientific understanding of biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc., there has always been an understanding of Scripture as spiritual & allegorical, rather than as empirical & literal, within the Christian church, even though that particular understanding has over the centuries often been overlooked, forgotten, or outright persecuted by other elements within the same church.

Therefore, it is patently NOT true to suggest that the only reason people like me, in the present day, put forth an allegorical interpretation of Scripture is because we have been "forced" to do so in light of modern science. That just ain't the case.

Now, modern science DOES force modern biblicists to admit the folly of their position ... or at least it does if said biblicists have any shred of intelligence and integrity...

In other words, modern science lends credence to the views of believers like myself who have supported an allegorical interpretation of Scripture for nearly two millennia ~ modern science vindicates us!

Does this mean that the rest of what is in this text (the whole text) is not true?

I know I sound like a broken record here (cue the teenage n00bz, going "what's a 'record'?"), but we have to be very careful with questions like that. "What is Truth?" is a perfect follow-up.

When it comes to spiritual texts, it is pointless to ask "is it true?" That only allows for two possible answers, and both possibilities are equally useless in practical terms.

The only question that is *useful* when looking at a spiritual text is this: in what *ways* can this passage be said to be "true"? Or, put another way, which interpretations/applications of this passage hold true?

That kind of question not only allows, but demands, that the asker delve deep into not only the superficial, literal, surface of the text, but into the underlying concepts, principles, values, persepctives, mindsets, and philosophies embodied in the superficial text. Indeed that's the entire point of reading Scripture in the first place.

Not necessarily, however, it makes some pretty wild claims... but it makes me doubt the reliablity of the rest of its claims... or rather... the ever changing/differing interpretations of it...

This is another difficult concept, but it's central to the discussion: If we take as "given" that "God" (or insert substitute term of choice) is "eternal," and hence "unchanging," how do we account for different depictions of "God" ~ based on "ever-changing" interpretations of Scripture over time?

Well, here's the bottom line: whether or not "God" changes (as a believer, I hold that God is, in fact, eternal & unchanging), our human capacity to perceive, conceive of, interact with, and know God CAN AND DOES change ALL THE TIME, both within a single human life, and for all humanity collectively as we grow and develop.

The ideal, for believers such as myself, is to be ever-striving after God, yearning to come into ever-closer relationship/contact with Him/Her/It. That's, in fact, the very definition of "Communion," for Christians. Christianity is, fundamentally, about transformation. That very notion requires us to accept that our ability to know and understand God MUST be changeable.

Do you see where I'm coming from on that particular point?

I pose the question... if it were years ago, when we "lived on a flat earth that the sun went around" would this even be a discussion?...

We never "lived on a flat earth that the sun went around." The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round. The ancient Egyptians & Hindus knew that the Sun was the center of our solar system.

Now, does that mean that the common peasant in those cultures knew such things? Of course not. No more so than the common redneck in America really understands the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But you get the idea, yeah?

at that time the understanding WOULD be quite literal... and according to "todays" understanding or "years agos" understanding I guess I missed the point... and/or did they also miss the point years ago?

Yes. Bear in mind that for the VAST MAJORITY of human history, only a tiny percentage of the population in any given culture has been *allowed* to learn to read & write. Such abilities ~ and the knowledge to which those abilities grant access ~ have for the most part been reserved for the VERY privileged few!

Thus, there has always been a distinction between the understanding of the educated and enlightened on the one hand, and the "ignorant masses" on the other, who lack the training and background to grasp anything much more sophisticated that the *literal* stories. (That's why in the Gospels Jesus admonishes His disciples NOT to throw put their "pearls" before "swine."

But that distinction was never unique to Christianity. In Pagan Greece, for instance, the uneducated masses took their "myths" quite literally, whereas more educated and sophisticated thinkers (like Socrates, and his prize pupil, Plato) spoke very scornfully of those who took said myths as *literal* fact instead of allegorical teaching.

The New Testament is a Greek document. It preserves that educated Greek understanding of sacred story as allegory.


(continued...)

[draelyc]

Continued:

I think you get what I am saying...I find great problems with such changes of perspective... it is just too easy and convenient when one reads the claims in made later in the book.

I do get how it can appear that way when someone "looks in" on it from an outside perspective. But I also think that if we really look closely at the historical and cultural realities surrounding the history of Scripture, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss allegorical interpretations as "convenient," especially when so many people have been burned at the stake for them (figuratively and literally)...

It absolutely does!

Whew! Lol!

I have used the term "blind" faith in the past... and though I am quite sure that there are people in the world following what is being taught to them by their sects figureheads with out question or further meditation and study... I find it to be a poor choice of description of the faithful... there is a Reason people have their said faith... so I think it is a term a term that should be retired... as it is usually used as an "attack" phrase to lesson or belittle one who subscribes to one of these systems....

COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!! WELL-SAID!!!

I do indeed like your clarification between skeptic/mystic... but it begs for further clarification. If one say has say... the Baptist sect of Christianity... are they a skeptic or a mystic when it comes to differing Islamic sect beliefs... or that of Southern Baptists?

That's a tough one! But as you later point out (not in so many words, but still), there's a difference between skepticism and outright dismissal, right?

My suspicion is that those religious groups which claim that theirs is the "only true path/faith/interpretation/etc." aren't really skeptical of other systems/groups, because to be skeptical, one MUST take the "other" seriously, one MUST admit at least the possibility of truth or value in the "other" view, however much one doubts it at the start.

In other words, one cannot be skeptical without being open to being convinced otherwise, right?

If there is NO possibility of changing a person's mind on something, then that person isn't "skeptical" of other viewpoints; he is, rather, ignorant or intolerant of other viewpoints. See what I mean?

Yes, I do agree.... but this also begs for another question... where are these states of conciousness or internal experiences coming from. I am a person whom has enjoyed many of these experiences when I *was* a christian and thought them to be inspired by my faith or rather my walk with the lord... and now as a non believer I still can have these experiences through music, art, nature, meditation, (intoxicants heh heh heh...) and recognize that these experiences are part of being human... .

As a would-be mystic myself, I would point out that, from my perspective, to be human is to take part in divinity. I define "human being" as "a spiritual being undergoing a physical existence." So, where do those experiences come from? They come from the Divine, which is nothing more nor less than our very birthright, as human beings ~ from my perspective. Yes, indeed, I would completely agree that such experiences are part of being human ~ the very *essence* of being human, I would argue!

How does one become a skeptic? Only after one reads the texts and evaluates them on their words and history. One does not start out a skeptic of these texts until exposed to them... (theists as well when presented another perspective/faith system)... in this we are ALL skeptics of the other perspective. Skepticism is not always in the mindframe of empircal science... though it is very similar to the process.. one learns, evaluates, and comes to a conclusion... whether it be "y" or "z".

I agree that skepticism =/= empirical science, although empirical science is founded upon a basis of skepticism.

Beyond that, I may need you to explain what you're getting at there a little bit more ... not sure I follow you completely.

Indeed.

Isn't it astounding, how productive a conversation we can have when we A) put our emotions to the side, and B) actually think intelligently about what's being said? I gotta thank you for redeeming this conversation, Ed! Good on ya! I hope I can live up to the standard you're setting here.

You're giving me some great ideas for my next blog ... You mind if I refer to this conversation (in general terms) when I go to put that together?

Thanks!
C

[Illuminatus]

WHAT HE SAID!!!

[chuckgp]

cold and windy, 30F. Light sleet.

[draelyc]

So ... Dan Simmons was pretty much stung by a Catholic as a child, huh?

[edthecat]

[

Yes. Bear in mind that for the VAST MAJORITY of human history, only a tiny percentage of the population in any given culture has been *allowed* to learn to read & write. Such abilities ~ and the knowledge to which those abilities grant access ~ have for the most part been reserved for the VERY privileged few! Thus, there has always been a distinction between the understanding of the educated and enlightened on the one hand, and the "ignorant masses" on the other, who lack the training and background to grasp anything much more sophisticated that the *literal* stories. (That's why in the Gospels Jesus admonishes His disciples NOT to throw put their "pearls" before "swine." But that distinction was never unique to Christianity. In Pagan Greece, for instance, the uneducated masses took their "myths" quite literally, whereas more educated and sophisticated thinkers (like Socrates, and his prize pupil, Plato) spoke very scornfully of those who took said myths as *literal* fact instead of allegorical teaching. The New Testament is a Greek document. It preserves that educated Greek understanding of sacred story as allegory.

I have no problems with the history.... again... where you see "y" I see "z". I see a system made by man used to control the masses... and keeping them uneducated and ignorant, thus making the scriptures not devine, if they were devine the deity would have made it for the masses... etc etc... you've heard this perspective before... we've talked on it... I have nothing new or fresh for this part of the discussion:wave: and I think it would only make these LOOOOOONG posts unnecissarily longer.

[edthecat]

continued:

You're giving me some great ideas for my next blog ... You mind if I refer to this conversation (in general terms) when I go to put that together? Thanks! C

Sure... just link me to the blog so I can check it out....

[chuckgp]

So ... Dan Simmons was pretty much stung by a Catholic as a child, huh?

I've never heard what was behind all the stuff in the Cantos. I just enjoy it.

[draelyc]

[ THAT, was very well put.. I can jive with that.

Thanks, mang. I get lucky every now & then.

I really like this perspective... however... would you apply this to all Spiritual Texts? In what ways are the passages in (book of morman, bible, quoran, torah, etc) true... in what ways can they all be true.

Yes. Absolutely. No question.

Now, that position brands me as a "heretic" according to some of my erstwhile Christian brothers & sisters. It's okay, though. I'm in good company, in that regard.

Each not recognizing the other as "having the right truth"... and recognizing themselves exclusively as the "devine" word.

That is one of the, if not THE, major failings of contemporary religion, imho.

In asking the question as what WAYS they are true... it also begs the opposite.. in what ways are the passages NOT true.

Yes. Absolutely. Without question. One *cannot* ask the one without *also* exploring the other.

Certainly, we can investigate all of them as ask the question of the way each has truths... but when we get down to the nitty gritty (and really... the literal) they are incompatible.

Actually, what you'll discover if you pursue such a comparative investigation and pursue it from the perspective I've outlined is that the only "incompatible" elements are superficial; fundamentally (ironically), the Great Faiths of the world are entirely compatible. The seemingly-irreconcilable differences are almost entirely cultural. When stripped down to the essential core, we see a remarkable unity between and amongst these great traditions ~ especially when one studies the *mysticism* at the core of each Faith.

So, in what way can any be true? or false? In asking what ways the passages are true... opens up a whole universe of answers... circling back around to any interpretation...

Except that you've already hit upon the safeguard against that "anything goes" mentality yourself: one must *also* ask "in what way(s) is this passage NOT true?" That's the check & balance.

and when each text claims exclusivity of the devine word... well.... I find problems with this.

Let me toss an idea/perspective/thought out there that might help with that. Or it might not, but we still won't have lost anything from exploring it.

Imagine that Truth (note the capital "t") is a physical object, and imagine that object sits at the center of a large circle. The circle itself is made up of many different people, standing shoulder to shoulder, face to face, back to back ~ all different angles relative to the center.

Now, those folks at the center will be able to see the object we're calling Truth. But everyone who sees it, sees it from a slightly different angle. And NOBODY sees the entire three-dimensional object all in one viewing. (And, of course, some people have their backs to the center and see no "Truth" at all; some can only catch a sideways glimpse because they stand at an angle, etc.) But the main point is that no one individual can take in the whole thing ~ no one person would have the full picture of Truth exclusively to himself ... Yet Truth would be plainly visible (and thus, belong *inclusively*) to all who were looking towards the center of the circle.

Now, what if everyone who was looking at Truth attempted to describe what he or she sees as accurately as possible? Those standing close to each other in the circle would describe very similar, but *not* identical, images. However, those standing on the opposite side of the circle from them would describe totally different images. Who's "right" in that circumstance? Who's "wrong"? The terms simply do not apply in any meaningful sense.

Each one looking at Truth would have an "exclusive" point of view ~ a view that would emphasize specific aspects/facets of Truth. But no one point-of-view could claim to contain a complete (in any absolute sense) picture of Truth.

This, in my view, is the reality with which we are dealing when it comes to the various religions of the world. And to me, the most important aspect of this model is this: for one view from one religion to contain Truth does NOT require another view from another faith to contain "less" Truth. There is not a "finite amount of Truth" to go around. And it's certainly not all-or-nothing.

Thus, when we see a sacred text claim to reveal the "One Truth," that claim may well be valid. But it doesn't even remotely mean that another sacred text, from another tradition, cannot *also* reveal the "One Truth" from a different perspective.

So ... let me know if *that* craziness makes any sense....

By asking in what ways do we find truth... it is implying/assuming that there is truth there...

Yes, that is correct. And that is a postulate ~ it is taken as given as an initial assumption, and can neither be proven nor disproven. That goes back to my argument that neither atheism nor theism is inherently "more" or "less" logical ~ each begins with an initial supposition and may proceed to reason from that supposition logically.

not only that but there could be multiple truths.

Not necessarily~ that's what the model I outlined above addresses. It's perfectly reasonable to predict that even a single Absolute Truth would give rise to multiple perceptions/interpretations when filtered through human consciousness.

And though there are many great life lessons to found in these texts that could be seen as truths.... the claims made of deities, higher powers, souls, spirits,judgements, miracles, afterlifes... etc etc can certainly be in question as having any validity (truth).

Absolutely. In fact, as I've said several times, I personally contend that no individual should accept the existence of such non-empirical intangibles until and unless one has direct, first-hand experience to merit such acceptance ... one should *certainly* never accept the existence of such things just because a book makes the claim!

Recognizing that whether or not there is a changing Deity... it is really about growing as a human and a society... getting closer to that Deity will cause changes in the human... these change can change the perception of the Deity, but the Deity is still not changed. Do I have it right?

I'd agree with that!

Understanding the concept of a Deity is understanding that it would be outside the human minds realm of understanding... which makes these conclusions quite sound... I have no problems with this as long as one accepts the existence of a Deity(ies).

And again, one shouldn't just accept the existence of any such thing merely going on someone else's word for it...

If I understand you correctly.. that makes sense in context. However, transformation can also come without reliance on a Deity or a relationship with one... and it is a natural human response... humans naturally grow and transform and seek truth, seek answers. I see no need to give a Deity credit for what happens naturally.

Again, completely true and I agree wholeheartedly.

(continued again...)

[draelyc]

Continued (again):

I mean no offense here... but this, to me, is a convenient description.... it's like saying "god works in mysterious ways" to explain what cannot really be explained... and this line of thinking is exactly why I see "z" when you see "y".

No offense taken, but I'm not sure I'm grasping you're point. "Convenient" in what way(s)? Explaining *what* that cannot really be explained? *NOT* trying to pick a fight ~ I just want to comprehend what you're getting at, here.

I have no problems with the history.... again... where you see "y" I see "z". I see a system made by man used to control the masses... and keeping them uneducated and ignorant,

Please note that I have never once denied (and will not ever deny) the deplorable, but thoroughly documented, FACT that religion, relgious texts, and religious teachings have been subverted and PERVERTED by horrible, horrible people MANY times throughout history to do exactly that: control the masses, keeping them oppressed in the selfish interests of the privileged few. It's an ugly fact, but a fact nonetheless.

But you can see that said fact IN NO WAY proves or requires that such uses "must have been" the original or only purpose for which religion came into being. That does not follow logically. It's a *possibility*, sure, but nowhere near the *only* possibility.

thus making the scriptures not devine, if they were devine the deity would have made it for the masses... etc etc... you've heard this perspective before... we've talked on it... I have nothing new or fresh for this part of the discussion:wave: and I think it would only make these LOOOOOONG posts unnecissarily longer.

Lol, well, let me throw out something that may (or may not) be new on that point ... regarding whether Deity guided the creation of such texts/teachings "for the masses."

Is it not logical and reasonable, *if* one presupposes the existence of a deity which is benevolently disposed towards the guidance of humanity's spiritual evolution, to suppose that a sacred text, to be worthy of the term "sacred," would perforce need to have the capability of speaking to each and every individual, regardless of that individual's level of spiritual development at any given time?

In other words, I doubt you would argue the point that all human beings alive today are *not* equally spiritually (or morally, or intellectual, or socially) developed. Some folks are smarter than others. Some folks are more noble than others. Some folks are more selfless and giving than others. Some folks are more sensitive and disciplined than others. Some folks are more moral & ethical than others. Yes?

Now, how could *one* text possibly speak to ALL such people in a way that would empower each individual to progress to a higher level of spiritual development?

I don't think there is a way, unless it be that the text in question admit of multiple layers of interpretation. The literal, superficial level must give basic instructions that even the least developed, least spiritual, least intellectual, least moral person could benefit from. (Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Love God. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Etc.) How could such an undeveloped person be made to grasp the intricacies of Creation? It could only be through a simple, yet colorful story (such as Genesis), told in such a way that the story gives even the least developed person a sense of the inherent relationship between God and Humanity.

Of course, if that surface level interpretation is the ONLY possible interpretation, then the VAST MAJORITY of humanity (which is at least slightly more advanced than our completely-unevolved example) would be completely ignored by this supposedly sacred text. Well, that wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?

So there MUST be some depth available there ~ accessible to those who are sufficiently enlightened to think symbolically, to understand the complex abstractions represented by the mythological stories. In other words, to be truly sacred, such a text MUST be able to offer MORE to those who have mastered the basics and still hunger and thirst for Truth, who still yearn to come closer to God.

In my view, the measure of how sacred a text is consists precisely in how deeply one may delve into its layers of meaning. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures, for instance, are as deep as the individual looking into them is able to go ~ and when he or she becomes able to go deeper, that depth is there, waiting to be explored. The same is true of the Baghavad Gita, the Qu'ran, etc. It's what *makes* those sacred texts sacred.

Whoops. I didn't mean to get quite so long-winded there. I'll definitely have to turn this into a blog, to justify all these words. As always, lemme know if it makes sense, or if it's ...

Peace,
Chris

[draelyc]

I've never heard what was behind all the stuff in the Cantos. I just enjoy it.

Oh, I'm enjoying it immensely, too.

It's just that I'm a bit with all the Pax stuff (which is exactly what Simmons wants me to feel, I'm sure!), and I was very, very disappointed to discover what became of Dure's pontificate at the hands of Hoyt.

[chuckgp]

Oh, I'm enjoying it immensely, too. It's just that I'm a bit with all the Pax stuff (which is exactly what Simmons wants me to feel, I'm sure!), and I was very, very disappointed to discover what became of Dure's pontificate at the hands of Hoyt.

My reactions exactly:facepalm: