Clarity of Scripture

[Ahanu]

I think wil expressed a similar point a good while back, or he seamed to to me. Sort of like the texts express what the reader needs to get where he's going.

Getting back on topic . . . is scripture clear?

In my opinion, this can be expressed another way: the interpretation of the text reflects the reader's own being.

Hence multiple viewpoints. At this level scripture doesn't appear clear at all, because we see different people saying different things. Rumi's "Moses and the Shepherd" is a great example of a discussion about one's being in relation to interpretation. In this poem Moses hears a shepherd uttering what he considers nonsensical prayers to God:

"Where are You?-- so I can become Your servant, and mend
Your sandals and comb Your head.

"(So) I can wash Your robe, kill Your lice, (and) bring
milk in front of You, O Great (Lord)".​

As the shepherd continues, Moses can no longer take such talk:

"What is this foolish talk? What is this gibberish and
ignorance of (true) belief? Press some cotton into your
mouth!

"The stink of your unbelief has made the world (to)
smell bad. (And) your unbelief has made the brocaded silk of
religion (into) an old patched garment".​

The shepherd tears his clothes and wanders off. Later, Moses receives a revelation:

""Did you come for the sake of uniting or did you come
for the sake of separating and cutting off?

"As much as you are able, do not step in (the direction
of) separation. The most hateful of (lawful) things to Me is
divorce.

"I have given to every person a (particular) nature and
temperament, (and) I have given to every person a
(particular) form of speech and idiomatic expression.

"It is praiseworthy in regard to him, but blameworthy in
regard to you; it is (like) honey in regard to him, but
(like) poison in regard to you".​

I wonder if any Christian mystics voice similar concerns?

 

[Ahanu]

I'm asking why, with all the supreme powers at his fingertips, why he could not have handed down a document that made it precisely clear what he desired and expected of mortals. He certainly has the power to do that, no?

Because of the diversity of being in creation, is it possible for God to "hand down" one clear reading of his document for all time? Is it like trying to hand down a square circle? Say he does hand down a square circle. How would we recognize it? With all our differences (biologically, psychologically, economically, culturally, and so on), how would we recognize the one true reading of the Bible? Especially for different people living in different time periods? Seems to me like asking God to make a square circle. Just speculating from my perspective. Good question. An important one!

 

[Ahanu]

Good Lord, ACOT, that's a very Catholic reading!

Hello Thomas!

See my last question in post # 81 about Christian mystics and Rumi.

 

[wil]

Hello Thomas!

See my last question in post # 81 about Christian mystics and Rumi.

A that was a wonderful read
B I read it just as I had allowed omega to get me
C a Sufi denomination has been created around Rumi?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

With all our differences (biologically, psychologically, economically, culturally, and so on), how would we recognize the one true reading of the Bible? Especially for different people living in different time periods? Seems to me like asking God to make a square circle.

I like your comments and I also have to disagree to an extent. Being a Devil's Advocate for real this once, I was merely speculating that by the definition of the Abrahamic God (and many others), he has the power to do virtually anything. Anything at all. An omnipotent God that can do anything could write a bible for which there was but one acceptable understanding no matter who, when or where read it. I'm just saying it is not beyond the possibility of God to do so.

That he obviously did not, means, to me, he didn't want to do that. He wanted to create a text that could be interpreted by the individual depending on a host of factors that made up that individual like ethnicity, country of origin, when they lived and so on.

 

[Ahanu]

A that was a wonderful read
B I read it just as I had allowed omega to get me
C a Sufi denomination has been created around Rumi?

D All of the above

 

[Thomas]

I wonder if any Christian mystics voice similar concerns?

There is a story of a 5th century mystic, I've told it here before, so I'll cut to the chase.

He was locked in a theological dispute, and in a dream saw his heretical enemies falling into the pit of eternal fire. He was happy enough to watch them suffer as they tried to climb out, then slip back. Then he saw someone going down to the rim of the pit, and offering a hand to pull them clear, so he went down to intervene ... and saw it was Christ.
"I died to save men from perdition," the Lord said, "And you keep trying to push them in again?"

Yes, the sentiment has been expressed by the mystics, but then pastoral issues also have to be taken into consideration.

So my answer would be, Scripture is sufficient for the listening heart, and no matter how deep you go, it's deeper still ...

... but it is not open to every and any interpretation, else in the end it becomes meaningless, it becomes whatever we want it to be, to say whatever we want it to say.

It's not the eye that reads nor the lips that speak, its the heart that hears ... Rumi argues that the shepherd's heart is in the right place, and it's a tough course to steer, but I think Rumi would also have something to say about a shepherd who didn't have love in his heart ... or am I wrong?

 

[Ahanu]

There is a story of a 5th century mystic, I've told it here before, so I'll cut to the chase.

He was locked in a theological dispute, and in a dream saw his heretical enemies falling into the pit of eternal fire. He was happy enough to watch them suffer as they tried to climb out, then slip back. Then he saw someone going down to the rim of the pit, and offering a hand to pull them clear, so he went down to intervene ... and saw it was Christ.
"I died to save men from perdition," the Lord said, "And you keep trying to push them in again?"

Yes, the sentiment has been expressed by the mystics, but then pastoral issues also have to be taken into consideration.

Thanks for sharing.

... but it is not open to every and any interpretation, else in the end it becomes meaningless, it becomes whatever we want it to be, to say whatever we want it to say.

Rumi said: "It is praiseworthy in regard to him, but blameworthy in regard to you . . ." It is blameworthy for Moses because he is closer to the truth. It's not relativism; it's relationalism. Where we see cryptic passages in scripture prophets see clarity.

It's not the eye that reads nor the lips that speak, its the heart that hears ... Rumi argues that the shepherd's heart is in the right place, and it's a tough course to steer, but I think Rumi would also have something to say about a shepherd who didn't have love in his heart ... or am I wrong?

You're right.

 

[Thomas]

It is blameworthy for Moses because he is closer to the truth. It's not relativism; it's relationalism. Where we see cryptic passages in scripture prophets see clarity.

Absolutely! I wish the modern world would get that.