The semantics of religious experience

[flowperson]

Thanks Thomas and wil for your posts, but I guess I'm just too much of a realist to objectively believe in transcendant truths as expressed in the Gospels when our everyday lives demand subjective judgements and decisions from each of us.

I've had way too much exposure to the scientific side of universal realities, and they greatly influence what I believe...but I do believe that all stories concerning Jesus' time among us may be explained in terms of the quantum and uncertainty realities of the universe around us. Like wil...I take what is there and fit it to my real world experiences and understandings. And I might add that it works for me, and I feel that I have a strong relationship with G-d, even if He/She may not see it that way at all. But I still walk around and breathe each day, so I guess that level of acceptance also works for me.

In my way of viewing it all Jesus came among us for a reason, to bring a new ordering reality to the brutal realities of the classical world. I don't believe that the classical influences of acting in the world have faded that much in our everyday lives. There is still hierarchical rule, and there is still detrimental manipulation of the common people throught the hypocritical exercise of power by individuals and institutions alike, despite the advocation of liberty and democracy by certain leaders. And my opinion is that this is becoming more , not less, prevalent over time.

And Thomas, sad to say, I would attribute this to the purposeful obfuscations of Jesus' mission among us two thousand years ago. Too much information about this has been systematically excluded rather than being included. I know choices had to be made way back then to maintain the Classical order, but as time dances on it is becoming more clear that this has not been an approach beneficial to many people, especially the more unfortunate among us. Jesus was inclusionary, not exclusionary.

The universe is a conglomeration of order and disorder in ALL of its observable systems, animate and inanimate. That's what nature really is, and humanity is a reflection of that whether we believe it as individuals or not.

Jesus told us that He came to cast fire upon the earth. That means the old must pass away and be replaced by principles which treat everyone more equitably and fairly. That there will be more compassion and understanding among all of us. That there will be spiritual rewards for good people after their lives which may be less than glorious in earthly terms. That we must understand and love our neighbors, just as we would wish them to trust and care for us. Alas, in my world that doesen't seem to be happening any more these days than it ever did.

I ran across something on another site that convinces me that a plan is working here though. The link below explains a complex and systematic parody of religions that was composed in anticipation of the new sciences involving the study of complex systems and how they interact.

These scientific understandings, popularly known as chaos theory, began to be uncovered in the late 60's, well after this parody was conceived in the late 50's. They are in full bloom today in the ways that scientific discovery is being utilized to create our collective futures. What I'm saying here is that I'm grappling with all of this in trying to fit the traditional approaches into the new realities so that we have some chance of preserving what we all have had to guide us over the millenia. Whereas the bogus constructs as described in the link do not and have no chance of doing so. In many ways, the traditional stories and the traditional ways in which they have been interpreted and understood over the millenia are also deficient in explaining the realities that I must deal with. I believe that this is what your tutor was telling you in his comments concerning your essay.

I'm pretty much past having any real influence in the workings of the world, and I'm not going to delude myself into believing that I ever did. But I do know what is real to me, and what's going on in general is not very real to me anymore. Now I'll go have some cocoa and take a nap.

flow....
Discordianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tao_Equus]

Great post Flow,

And as Pope I make a commandment that everybody should think this way from 2.30 to 3pm every 2nd tuesday of the month.

Pope Tao

 

[Thomas]

If I am reading you right and I don't wish to put words in your mouth as this discussion of yours brings us closer in thought than we ever have...

There exists a transcendent truth.

Yes.

We can't prove, don't know what happened or didn't happen.

Not quite. We can posit theories, which are acceptable or not. Evolution is a theory we cannot prove — but all the evidence suggests it. Likewsie there is a significant body of evidence with which to approach Scripture.

But there exists a transcendent truth.

Yes. And that we can posit it, says much.

We don't know if it is historic fact or mythically real.

I disagree. We know a good deal more than allows us to make such bald statements as 'fact'. Even secular science posits that Jesus Chrisat actually existed. Bultmann suggested otherwise, and his foundation for such a statement has been 'proven', within scientific principle, to be unfounded. As it stands, the argument that He does exist is stronger than that against.

But there exists a transcendent truth.

Yes.

And in all this we can learn and grow....but we can be released from the literal, and revel in the metaphor.

Well this seems to imply that metaphor has no saubstantial reality as a referrant — which is disputable. It would seem that you posit that the literal has no substantial reality or meaning, only the metaphorical? That is not proven.

The link is metaphysics — which modernism disallows, but the modernist position has been demonstrated to be faulty, so metaphysics has to be allowed.

But as your path is different than mine, your understandings are different from mine...why can't our understandings of the text be different yet compatible...if we can't determine for ourselves what the scripture means to us....than we are right back to arguing whose beliefs are right and who holds the key.

Because some understandings are incompatible — such as whether He is a myth or a reality. The question revolves around our understanding of 'myth', and the bald statements of the disciples indicate He was not, so to mythologise Jesus, or to reduce Him to a metaphor, is to make a radical departure from the original teaching, with no sound basis for such a statement to be accepted as axiomatic.

We can only determine against the data available. But the data of Scripture is not self-disclosing — it has to be explained and understood.

We are not free to make of Him what we will, for the very reasons Flow puts forward.

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

Because some understandings are incompatible — such as whether He is a myth or a reality. The question revolves around our understanding of 'myth', and the bald statements of the disciples indicate He was not , so to mythologise Jesus, or to reduce Him to a metaphor, is to make a radical departure from the original teaching, with no sound basis for such a statement to be accepted as axiomatic.#

We can only determine against the data available. But the data of Scripture is not self-disclosing — it has to be explained and understood.#



Thomas

# But alas this is not so. Some of us believe that there are no reasons to not suppose that the gospels of the disciples are of little credibility. The similarity between many of the texts, and the persistent changes of names/sources for them hardly endears me to place much faith in the authenticity of source. I do not doubt that much of it originated from a single source, and do not discount that they were indeed the words of Jesus. But even if they are, to be blunt, they are a confused and often contradictory collection that are open to as many interpretations as one cares to dream up. Additionally there are credible scholars that put the birth/death of Jesus well before the normally accepted dates- based on Roman records, which have no bias to support. So if the 'bald statements of the disciples" are themselves myths then myth is all you have. And as most of those could not have lived contemporaneously with Jesus according to the Churches themselves surely it is all myth anyway.

# Explained according to who? It is all a matter of who you listen to surely. A prime example being the supremacy of the Papacy.

Sorry Thomas, but I think only someone who is looking to believe can actually call the Bible indisputably authentic.

Tao

 

[wil]

Even secular science posits that Jesus Chrisat actually existed.... It would seem that you posit that the literal has no substantial reality or meaning, only the metaphorical?

In the various sources I've read it appears Josephus's account was added and not by him...and is not his the only 'secular' account? Is there another?

When I say released from the literal...I mean the entire literal..every word in the KJV or whatever text ones presumes is written by the finger of G-d and fact unquestionable. This in itself leads to tons of confusion and appears untenable without 'belief'. So this allows myth to enter...something happened and this is the story we tell about that something...we'll never know what happened, but this is our story and we are stickin to it...discovering that transcendent truth or truths that are contained therein. Not discounting use for the literal translations/interpretations, simply removing the handcuffs.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tao —

Some of us believe that there are no reasons to not suppose that the gospels of the disciples are of little credibility.

I can accept that, all I am saying is that there is significant evidence to suggest that they are credible accounts. That's your choice, but there is a significant body of research which one could mount against it.

The similarity between many of the texts, and the persistent changes of names/sources for them hardly endears me to place much faith in the authenticity of source.

The 'Synoptic Problem' is a vast field of study, with many opposing theories, and no single thesis stands supreme, although the 'Two-Source Theory' at present holds sway among scholars. But that is part of the point — which theory one accepts is immaterial — the Catholic Church leaves it open for individual choice — this shows to me just one aspect of the Church's wisdom and genius with regard to the question, and one that has taken into account all that modern scholarship has to say on the matter, for or against.

This is why I find Church teachings more 'even' and 'open', often much more so than modern criticism which is much more dogmatic and fundamental in its assertions.

I do not doubt that much of it originated from a single source, and do not discount that they were indeed the words of Jesus. But even if they are, to be blunt, they are a confused and often contradictory collection that are open to as many interpretations as one cares to dream up.

They are now ... they weren't then, that's my point. They are now, because modernity insists they are. My point is the grounds for modernity's insistence is growing more suspect day by day — it's an opinion, nothing more.

Catholic doctrine can present an image that is neither confused nor contradictory... and can often argue that the counter-position is just that.

Additionally there are credible scholars that put the birth/death of Jesus well before the normally accepted dates- based on Roman records, which have no bias to support.

Would need to know who, and what they're saying.

And as most of those could not have lived contemporaneously with Jesus according to the Churches themselves surely it is all myth anyway.

Nor do I think that is the scholarly concensus ... again, I'd need references to argue. The Churches believe all four sources were contemporaneous.

The point is that the Gospels were not written for the community to believe, the Gospels are the text of what the community held to be true. Thus oral tradition predates textual, but the four gospels state what is the oral tradition — the four gospels, like the Pauline letters, were accepted because they said what the community believed, what was preached and what was practiced.

Explained according to who? It is all a matter of who you listen to surely. A prime example being the supremacy of the Papacy.

Not really, I think that's confusing the argument. I would say that the tradition that gave rise to the documents is the bebst source for their interpretation.

but I think only someone who is looking to believe can actually call the Bible indisputably authentic.

Indisputably authentic what?

Let me say again, I'm not arguing a thelogical point, but a semantic point.

Whether one chooses to believe in the bible is an act of faith — but I am arguing that the arguments that the bible is fiction, myth, etc., is actually less firm now than it was, and the argument that there is a truth that underlies scripture more firm than it was ...

In my experience, most critics don't want to believe — that's fine, that's there choice, but when they argue 'sound' objective reasons why they should not believe, or why one need not believe, then often the reasoning is inadequate, or simply no longer viable, in the face of new scientific findings and analysis.

Catholic theology, for example, is often at the cutting edge of philosophical development, sometimes it is the cutting edge, Bernard Longergan's work on Cognitive Theory, for example, but it keeps current, and critiques itself constantly in the light of current philosophy and scientific discovery.

Those who claim we're living in the past — and I make no accusation of such to anyone here — are often speaking out of total ignorance, prejudice, and often based on arguments that are well out of date and were consigned to the bin ages ago.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

When I say released from the literal...I mean the entire literal..every word in the KJV or whatever text ones presumes is written by the finger of G-d and fact unquestionable.

Well that's not what Catholicism teaches, and personally I consider it too simplistic an argument to be acceptable.

This in itself leads to tons of confusion and appears untenable without 'belief'.

Agreed. One is obliged to suspend reason to make such an assertion.

So this allows myth to enter...something happened and this is the story we tell about that something...we'll never know what happened, but this is our story and we are stickin to it...discovering that transcendent truth or truths that are contained therein. Not discounting use for the literal translations/interpretations, simply removing the handcuffs.

Well I would say, in the absence of critical philosophical, theological and metaphysical investigation, the above can only result ... we're back to everyone inventing Jesus to suit themselves again.

Thomas

 

[wil]

...I am arguing that the arguments that the bible is fiction, myth, etc., is actually less firm now than it was, and the argument that there is a truth that underlies scripture more firm than it was ... ....

Those who claim we're living in the past — and I make no accusation of such to anyone here — are often speaking out of total ignorance, prejudice, and often based on arguments that are well out of date and were consigned to the bin ages ago.

Thomas

Maybe an oversimplification but I look at this book...compiled 1700 years ago, written 1800-2800 years ago... I don't think anyone today says it is all fiction, all myth, but many/most say it contains fiction, contains myth, contains stories which are exaggerated/distorted to prove a point or raise a character in status. And I feel nothing, virtually nothing of this can be proven with what we know today... it can be argued, discussed, but it relies on belief.

Now to my oversimplification and proof that the above is true. We have the exact same thing 250 years ago and we are just now working on separating the fact/truth from the fiction/myth of the American Revolution...every piece written was either biased to the American side or the British and every account was bastardized to support some cause or another...George Washington, Betsy Ross, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, the list goes on and on...all elevated to heights of some sort of saviour at one time or another in their carreers and their accomplishments magnified...

Or lets take the current Iraq war....the best minds of the country and the world fell for the weapons of mass destruction, domino theory, al queda, uranium link....this was what 3-4 years ago??? millions of people duped hook line and sinker to send our offspring, parents and siblings to war?

Yes we don't know, can't prove and argue over the fiction/myth created in the past few years...the past 250 years...but we've got some certainty on what happened 2000 years ago?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Maybe an oversimplification...

I'm inclined to agree, and add perhaps that it's a generalisation, and an assumption. Again, you imply that it's OK for anyone and everyone to invent Jesus according to their own inclination ... do you not see the danger of self-serving philosophy ... one of extreme — dare on say fundamentalist — relativism?

but I look at this book ... compiled 1700 years ago, written 1800-2800 years ago ... I don't think anyone today says it is all fiction, all myth, but many/most say it contains fiction, contains myth,

And a huge amount of scholarship has gone into identifying which is which. Has scholarship achieved nothing in the interveing years? Not necessarily conclusively, verse for verse, but nevertheless highlighting the strands ...

contains stories which are exaggerated/distorted to prove a point or raise a character in status.

Well now we're dangerous territory ... because as a simplification this could also include fabrication and lies...

And I feel nothing, virtually nothing of this can be proven with what we know today... it can be argued, discussed, but it relies on belief.

Here I have to say I think you're wrong. To say nothing can be proven is overstating the case. A lot can be said, and said reliably. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is another matter.

Now to my oversimplification and proof that the above is true ... separating the fact/truth from the fiction/myth of the American Revolution ...every piece written was either biased to the American side or the British and every account was bastardized to support some cause or another ... George Washington, Betsy Ross, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, the list goes on and on ... all elevated to heights of some sort of saviour at one time or another in their carreers and their accomplishments magnified ... Or lets take the current Iraq war....the best minds of the country and the world fell for the weapons of mass destruction, domino theory, al queda, uranium link....this was what 3-4 years ago??? millions of people duped hook line and sinker to send our offspring, parents and siblings to war?

I don't think that such narrow and selective examples are sufficient proof to discount Scripture. I could dig out documents that are twice as old, and utterly reliable.

Yes we don't know, can't prove and argue over the fiction/myth created in the past few years...the past 250 years...but we've got some certainty on what happened 2000 years ago?

I think this again is making an absolute statment that won't stand examination, and I think scholarship would accuse you of making broad and sweeping generalisations that are inaccurate and ill-founded.

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

Historically there were no scholars that did not have an agenda. In modern times there are very very few that don't.
Even in a simple court case you will get witnesses to an event that describe it very differently from each other. All we are ever left with is a general idea of how things happened. This is especially true of spoken words.
The Bible is not just a holy book of wisdom and direction it is also a tool to get people to think one way and one way only. Politically that makes it a powerful instrument and it is naive to think that much of its content has not been manipulated to just these ends. Of course the Bible contains many lies and deliberate perversions of what really took place. Man being man it could not be otherwise.

tao

 

[Thomas]

Man being man it could not be otherwise.

So by nature man is a helpless liar? No man can tell the truth?

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

So by nature man is a helpless liar? No man can tell the truth?

Thomas

Certainly not those seeking power over others.

 

[Thomas]

Certainly not those seeking power over others.

What about those giving power?

Thomas

 

[Tao_Equus]

What about those giving power?

Thomas

When has such a thing ever happened? The powerful take power. The mechanics of that can be complex and create the illusion of some level of democracy but that is all it is, illusion.

Look at the internal election of Gordon Brown to lead the Labour Party. There was no democracy there. Within any body seeking power there are factions and the members divide themselves according to who they want or who they think will most be helpful to their individual agendas. The cleverest most influential and powerful rise to the top by a combination of patronage, acquiescence and bribery. The rest of us get to vote on what is already a rigged game. Nice people don't seek power.

Tao

 

[wil]

Again, you imply that it's OK for anyone and everyone to invent Jesus according to their own inclination ... do you not see the danger of self-serving philosophy ... one of extreme — dare on say fundamentalist — relativism?

And a huge amount of scholarship has gone into identifying which is which. Has scholarship achieved nothing in the interveing years? Not necessarily conclusively, verse for verse, but nevertheless highlighting the strands ...

Now in reality, no generalization...I don't know any Catholic student, ie one who went to school 1-12 church every sunday, some wednesdays often on saturday...catechism the whole nine yards...not one read the bible...many never saw anything accept what the school gave them...So are you providing me the insight that the Catholic church only provided to their students the portions of the bible they felt relevant or true? That they are this scholarship you speak of??

Now we've got the red letter bibles...putting Jesus words in red so we can see them...and the Jesus Seminar who assigned them red, pink, grey, bold black so we could identify what Scholars thought were words actually said by Jesus and what was attributed...

Oh how I would love the bible that does the same with the entire text...Black we believe to be factual, Purple metaphor, allegory, parable, myth, Blue dates are wrong, Green -exaggeration for affect, Yellow - added later, Orange borrowed from other culture/religion....etc...

You speak of fabrications...as I understand it the entire book of Jonah was an Op-Ed piece of the time, speaking derisively of the current leadership...much like Gullivers Travels....does that mean I feel the need to toss it out of the bible or that I can't learn something from it?? NO, but I surely don't think it should be taught as factual...and tell little kids when they ask about fish stomach acids...well all things are possible with G-d...to me that is exactly what causes so many folks to toss the whole religious experience....and why religion has its issues today.

 

[Thomas]

When has such a thing ever happened?

Then I must declare myself an optimist.

I believe that God man man are both, in essence, good.
I do believe however, that man is fallible, and God is not.

And I do believe in good people — one is enough to prove the point.

Thomas

 

[flowperson]

Lots of good people posting on CR, huh?

flow....

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Again, I'd say you're taking an extreme position, and one that is not what Catholicism believes, or teaches — and in fact refutes.

If you have time check out 'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
otherwise I suggest you're way off the mark when it comes to Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

Thomas