God of obedience or God of Recognition?

[seattlegal]

Oh, gee, Seattle, didn't I very early on say that for me these are metaphorical languages, didn't I mention the parallel narrative of the theory of evolution? I was pretty clear that I was outside the barn, which is why I placed the thread where I did.

Apologetics? That's just for my wife. Daily.


Cheers, Shanti, etc.

It shows.

 

[Devadatta]

You're right, Mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, shows that mankind was supposed to serve the gods. However, there is no a priori reason to believe that the monotheistic G-d of the Bible is among these Mesopotamian mythic gods or, for that matter, patterned after the depiction we see in the Enuma Elish story.


Further, be aware that the notion of a central Creator was present in the patriarchal religion of the Canaanites:

Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible......​

The Wiki notes "the use of the word Elohim found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) denoted the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god)."

El is the Canaanite creator g-d, who was characterized -- not as a slave driver who demanded obedience -- but as beneficent and non-hostile "father of mankind' and "creator of creatures," "the Compassionate One."

For your interest, Talmudic term for G-d is Rachmana, which means "the Compassionate One." This apparent overlap in G-d concepts is not definitive by any means. But it does suggest that ancient Canaanite mythology depicting a kindly patriarchal creator god was a source for Hebrew divinity constructs.

I thought I dash off something quickly on this, as I did above; after all, it’s bedtime, and I didn’t think you’d want to talk to me anymore anyway. But then you took the trouble to look this up on Wiki! This is an extraordinarially complex question, which one can endlessly debate, which has no resolution – everyone will find what they’re looking for. The bottom line for me is that there is indeed a problematic with Abrahamic religion and questions of power and authority, of which the evidence is plentiful, and which is rooted in the most ancient sources. And merely to defend or affirm what monotheism should be or “really is” doesn’t address the question.

Anyway, below I’ve pasted part of another post (from the thread Tilting at windmills redux in the Judaism garden). In it I lay out a general take on this question. It’s not a scholarly treatise, only my 2 cents. (Of course, you many very well find it no more convincing than my original post in this thread.)


...with your indulgence, let me try a fair but very schematic comparison between these two broad traditions that inform what a vast majority of humankind think religion is or should be, based on fundamental texts.



For me the most straightforward comparison is that between the textual pole stars of each tradition: Torah/Tanakh for the Abrahamic tradition, and Sruti (“what was heard”), i.e., the collections of Vedic hymns and their attendant literatures, culminating with the Upanishads, for the orthodox Indian tradition. The elaboration of these two textual traditions are roughly contemporaneous, covering a similar span of time; both locate a major focus in the practice of sacrifice; both are divine revelations “heard” and transmitted by sages; both are considered divine root texts whose every word, syllable and sound is meticulously studied. And yet the substance of their concerns, the mental climate is profoundly different. Torah/Tanakh is vitally concerned with making distinctions, drawing dichotomies, establishing authority and with transcendent power as a guarantor of order; Sruti with making analogies, finding identities, explicating authority and with immanent power as the guarantor of order.


It’s worth looking – again, very schematically - at the impact of each tradition at the point of greatest difficulty, religious war on the one hand, and the caste system on the other. In both cases, criticism is usually over-broad, over-simplified or misdirected.



In the case of the Indian caste system, for example, all that existed during most of the Vedic period were the four varnas, a nearly universal human class division that splits society into rulers, priests, producers and workers – distinctions that largely hold to this day, under various names. The Vedic and Upanishadic sages weren’t obsessed with the fine detail of caste. The problem (I speculate of course) was not in taking social/power relationships too seriously, but in not taking them seriously enough. Why take such relationships seriously when they don’t ultimately matter in terms of spiritual understanding or human happiness? Barring the occasional necessity of fighting some great evil (as in the Mahabharata), which demands an incarnation to set things right, the tendency in the face of social conflict must be not to revolution but to accommodation. That means merely ratifying social distinctions/particularizations as they occur, preserving stability; for the more stability there is the more we can think/meditate on what really matters. Besides, beneath this surface diversification there is always identity. So one can imagine the accretion of jati (cast divisions) over the centuries as each new threat to order is given a sublet in the vast complex of the dharma. So we have the paradox of a mental culture not much interested in social/power arrangements contributing to the creation of one of the most hierarchically detailed societies ever to exist.



Of course, the perennial difficulty of the Abrahamic tradition is that it takes social/power relationships very seriously indeed. And unlike the case of India, where caste seems almost a by-product of the mental culture, an unintended consequence, religious war would here appear to be engraved in stone, beginning with the Decalogue and its injunctions to destroy all competing representations of God.



So I could say that here’s the smoking gun, the genetrix of absolutist ideology, the original singularity in the big bang of imperial religion. But then an outsider like myself has to consider not only the assertions of Torah but also what these assertions are directed against. Who are these idols, these false gods? The emphasis is usually on the fact they’re mere stone, wood or clay, etc., that they have no real power, and finally that they’re likely connected with some abomination or another. Above all, it’s their lack of power that everyone from the church fathers to Muhammad has ridiculed (this emphasis in itself is telling on the true preoccupations of these critics). But it seems to me (and I’m sure this is an old story) that among the intensely political/social/legal concerns of Torah the true concern, the true sin, was not that the idols were powerless, but that they served power, that they served empire, that they diverted what should have been means to approach God (concrete representations) into means to serve empire, through the collusion of priests and rulers, and to oppress God’s people.



So in this view the priests of empire, through their idols, created ideology avant la lettre, and ideology not just in the basic meaning of “rationalization of power” but in the sense some modern noodlers have dubbed “false consciousness”, where “idols” divert human aspiration from ultimate goods and ultimate reality and even from their own reality to serve mere earthly power, i.e., Babylon, empire.



So where the Upanishadic sages would have seen little point in linking ultimate reality with earthly politics, but were content rather to track it through the forests of its immanent manifestations, Torah brings ultimate reality, transcendence starkly into view, urgently, as the only remedy to empire and the idols who serve it. (There’s no way of exactly explaining the genius of either tradition, but the contrasting historical conditions are impossible not to notice. India never even experienced empire until near the end of the age of Struti; even then, its empire was homegrown, though no doubt influenced by Persian and Greek incursions. Similarly, when you look at ancient China, you find a predominance of homegrown empire. Like everywhere else, these cultures knew all about war, but internecine, civil war, not the wars of alien occupation. On the other hand, the Hebrew/Jewish peoples as we know have wrestled with/suffered/served/shaped/resisted a whole dreary and endless succession of glorious and mostly alien empires. The ideological cast of Abrahamic religion is no doubt unique for solid historical reasons.)



I mentioned the irony of Vedic religion, hierarchy and caste, but the ironies of the Abrahamic shapings of power far exceed anything imaginable by the grandmotherly wisdom of Indian sages – which for me is a clue to why the West is so mysterious. Power is pressed into so many concealments.



The foundational irony is that the anti-imperial text of Torah, written against the idols of empire, was captured (Harold Bloom’s apt word) by imperial religion - and what could go wrong with that?



Everything. Here’s the mind-boggling nightmare of history we’d all like to awake from, an endless rogue’s gallery of pretenders pretending to renounce power in the name of God while in fact renouncing one power in the name of another, a dirty laundry list of anti-imperial empires and their civilizing missions, a Pandora’s box of ironies, absurdities, inanities – among uncountable examples in the present, we have radical atheists denouncing the idols of consumer capitalism in the tones of prophesy, along side Christian conservatives who embrace the same market idols as signposts to the New Jerusalem.



And there’s the question of power itself. Is the renunciation of worldly power, the smashing of its idols, merely in favour of some greater power, a bigger king? That’s the view of imperial religion. But there’s the deeper view that the breaking of idols is the unravelling of power itself, which in the end is only a human construct and an impious one to apply to ultimate reality, which is beyond such clumsy notions and impulses. This other, deeper impulse is generally obscured under the weight and lip service of creeds, institutions, holy emperors, caliphates, but it has always operated. If it hadn’t Abrahamic religion would have collapsed and disintegrated long ago under the weight of its own ideologies. It’s the Leninists of the tradition, like Paul of Tarsus, who get the credit for holding it together with authoritarian creeds, bizarre theologies and evangelistic manipulations, but the real heart of what keeps it all going and gives it value isn’t found in dogma or shariah but in the sufferings of Job, the sufferings of that radical Jewish preacher, Yeshua, and his true followers, and in the historical sufferings of the Jewish people.

 

[Devadatta]

I think the time limit for editing posts is 20 minutes, or there abouts. To get the editing feature to work, click the "Edit" button, then click the "Go Advanced" button on the next screen, make your edits, then click the "Save Changes" button.

Why, thank you!

 

[cyberpi]

Both the words 'obedience' and 'recognition' leap out at me as being focused on the brain of a dog. Obedience as a matter of control. Recognition as a matter of physical dependance or pride. The first word and concept has man as the dog. The second word and concept has god as the dog. Both concepts appear to me as a bit... misguided. I submit that faith is more than obedience, and love is more than recognition.

The fall of Adam/Eve looks to me more like a lesson of trust and trusting... or of faith and faithfulness. If the focus is on the knowledge or the tree in the story, then the mind is already lost to the lesson. God trusted Adam/Eve and communicated with Adam/Eve, disclosing that there was a tree that was in the middle of Eden and that it was evil to them. That disclosure is like the commandments. It is like telling a child today that a drug is addictive and physically harmful, so stay away from it. There are many things that the child could do instead of trying it... like ask more questions. Also, there are more things that Adam/Eve could have done. After betraying God's trust, Adam/Eve could have confessed and repented instead of trying to hide.

I think this verse ties in:

Mark 11:21-22 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which you cursed is withered away. And Jesus said to him, "Have faith in God."

There are a couple of ways of learning the knowledge of good and evil. The way that Adam/Eve chose was not good. But what if Adam/Eve had cursed the tree rather than trying to hide?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Devadatta —

Been away from this thread, but here are a few comments I'd like to make.

According to the Genesis account, why did God create human beings? In my outsider reading I get the sense of two distinct motives:
1. That God created human beings to serve Him.
2. That He created human beings to recognize Him.

Both of these suggest a requirement in God, for service or recognition from His creation ... this is not how the Abrahamic Tradition understands God, nor is it what the Tradition teaches. I can fully appreciate how one might assume that from an uninformed reading Scripture, but then if one is going to understand a text, then one must seek to understand what the scribe intended, not one's own opinion on the matter. Without the guidance of traditional commentary, one is really in the dark.

It should be noted tht Scripture was never meant to stand alone, or be read uninstructed ... quite the reverse.

+++

As you say, Mesopotamian theologies do accentuate a requirement, even a dependency, of the gods upon man (the Epic of Gilgamesh illustrates this). The Hebrew Scriptures were a move away from this. One might argue that the move is incremental, but again it is implicit from the outset. Of course, Scripture will use such language because it addresses volative man, not the contemplative nor the gnostic ... but as stated, Scripture can only be properly understood in the light of traditional commentary.

+++

And yet he demands obedience above all – or at least appears to.

Yes, that's my point. He appears to, but appearances can be deceptive. This assumption undermines your whole argument. You've set up a paradigmatic principle by which to test the text, but the principle itself is false.

Consider that while God demands obedience he makes disobedience impossible to avoid.

Such a God would be irrational. As God isn't, I'm afraid the logic of this statement is flawed. It might seem that way to you, but rest assured such is not the case.

That’s the story of the apple, the snake, the knowledge of good and evil and the fall. On an extra-biblical level this seems obviously an etiological myth explaining the emergence of discursive reasoning, the cognitive abilities that make us human but which abstract us, separate us from the primal unity, the direct, experiential contact with reality.

You seem to assume that discursive reasoning and cognitive ability are conditions subsequent of the Fall. They are not, nor do they necessarily separate us from the Real. In fact a close reading of the text will show that Adam and Eve display both prior to the Fall. Aquinas (13th c), and recently Lonergan (20th c), have shown the correct function of the cognitive ability. St Maximus the Confessor (6th c) discussed man's discursive faculty under the heading of 'gnomic will'.

So in the extra-biblical sense, the “fall” is simply another parable for the human dilemma, for the sense of separation or alienation.

I would rather call it Revealed data.

But in the biblical narrative, in the biblical language, where obedience is both mandated and impossible ...

Again, a subjective response.

In this context, one can see the necessity of the fall.

No, the Fall is not a necessity ...

Before the fall, human beings are scarcely more than images.

I suggest an over-literal reading of image.

When God walks in the garden in the cool of evening before the fall, he is unlikely to meet the other he desires, the other His creation was meant to deliver.

Again, this is not the God of the Abrahamic Tradition. Desire does not exist in God as you suggest it. 'God is simple' is a favourite of the Fathers, God cannot be added to or subtracted from, not augmented or diminished, not increased or decreased ... so God has no needs, wants, desires ...

So here the point is not the superficial one of the necessity of free will, of choosing between good and evil, but the deeper necessity of the fall into duality as the precondition for the summum bonum of mutual recognition between human consciousness and ultimate reality.

Not at all. the summon bonum is not in the mutual recognition, the summun bonum is the 'end' to which creation is directed, and for man is met now in the coincidence of human will and the divine will, and in the end in the coming to fruition of the Kosmos in the fullness of time. I think this misses the point — free will is not an issue, free will is a given ... it's how we dispose ourselves according to that freedom ... do we seek the 'real good' in God, or the imaginary good of our own self-deception.

I think you're bringing too many alien presuppositions to the text. I suggest that your idea of Union, or Unity, is different from the Abrahamic — or at least the Christian — idea.

For me, this God of Recognition is the universal side of the Abrahamic tradition, whose parallels are easily recognized in other major traditions, while the God of Obedience is culture-bound, restricted to a particular historical continuum and rooted in a particular geography, and whose preponderant emphasis on obedience above all else doesn’t fully translate into any other tradition.

The parallels are superficial, as are the cultural references — both are inevitable in man, but they don't define the content or message of Scripture.

So Paul recognizes that the Law, which is the fulfillment in scripture of God’s original call to obedience, is impossible to observe, in a literal sense. But he doesn’t recognize the Law as process, as practice, as a means for achieving re-cognition of God, and thus overcoming sin. Why? Because for Paul obedience itself is central. He defines his faith as obedience (see Romans, first chapter).

I think you fail to appreciate faith in the context of the Christian Tradition. For Paul, faith is central ... as it is for John, and for Christ. You need to understand faith in the context of the theological virtues — not as something blind. Jesus' healing of the Centurion's son shows that for Him, obediance and faith are synonymous.

But doesn’t he (St Paul) say “only believe, and do as you like”,

No.

Sure, but this is your classic Pauline logical/emotional bind ...

By now you should realise this and the rest of your commentary is subjective and your own opinion ... but from a Christian point of view is fundamentally flawed by a radical failure to comprehend the meaning of Scripture.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

...you jump all over the Buddhist analogy with a welter of references to the effect that attachment/aversion is a superficial affair and not intrinsic to the practice, as it most certainly is.

I didn't say attachment/aversion was not intrinsic to practice. It certainly is in Buddhism because it is an aspect of Dhukka. But that's not the point.

I was saying that specific attractions and aversion don't necessarily have moral properties that would link them to the moral issues raised by the Fall or to the question of odedience to G-d. Since Buddhism does not have a supreme deity that demands devotion and moral commitments, it is easy to see why I'd be puzzled about Buddhist terminology being introduced here, especially when the term conflict might do just fine.

Btw, it's still unclear whether Seattlegal actually intended a Buddhist analogy. Again, the use of the terms "attachment/aversion" was confusing and warranted clarification. In fact, my Post #27 was actually a second attempt to clarify the language of Seattlegal's Post #22. I'm kind of at a loss at this point.

Netti, Netti, my friend, you know this is angel dust, and far from the first you’ve thrown in your wake. I don’t claim to be familiar with every bit of psychological or philosophical jargon out there but I know when I’m being snowed.

Actually, I'm serious A subjective experience of conflict is not limited to an apprehension of the properties of the choices someone is facing. For example, in social psychology there are models of action that define a role for certainty. People resolve internal conflicts based in part on the certainty they have about the success of a course of action as well as the certainty they have about the probability of certain secondary consequences of their actions occurring.

Look, let’s part here as friends.

I haven't even addressed your original post and now you want to be rid of me? Haw!

Btw, I'm not in the least bit offended by your characterization. It just struck me as interesting that you'd suggest that my views indicate a lack of pluralism when I was trying to weave together several schools of thought .. principally because you had previously made it clear that you want to take an eclectic approach to the issues. I was trying to meet you half way - a least in terms of perspectivism - yet you would accuse me of being a garden variety apologist!!

I'm not in the least bit offended by your characterization. But it is remarkable that you criticize me for cluttering up your thread with irrelevancies when you are prepared to post a mulltiude of observations about how I see things that completely miss where I'm actually coming from and, moreover, show a failure to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the good faith of another discussant. It is kinda hard to avoid the impression of you taking an aggressive ad hominum approach when you make it personal with characterizations that are really pretty far off regarding someone you've never even interacted with before! I'd say it was pretty darned trigger happy.

I didn’t think you’d want to talk to me anymore anyway

You overestimate your power to scare me off so quickly. Moreover, the last sentence of my Post #33 makes it clear that your characterizations had not influence my decision to participate in this thread. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Actually I look forward to us talking some more. You're a good writer and seem to be working with lots of interesting ideas. I like your analysis of the political dimension of religion. It shows a genuine interest in the issues and avoids lapsing into the kind of heavy-handed cynical religious prejudice one often sees in that area of inquiry. My main suggestion would be to use historical/scriptural examples to fill things out. Some of your arguments are freestanding summaries without the specifics you are thinking about when you offer your summaries and ultimate conclusions.

The only other suggestion I would have: maybe avoid jargon that has a lot of philosophical connotations that may not be relevant to your line of argument.

Carry on.

 

[seattlegal]

I didn't say attachment/aversion was not intrinsic to practice. It certainly is in Buddhism because it is an aspect of Dhukka. But that's not the point.

I was saying that specific attractions and aversion don't necessarily have moral properties that would link them to the moral issues raised by the Fall or to the question of odedience to G-d. Since Buddhism does not have a supreme deity that demands devotion and moral commitments, it is easy to see why I'd be puzzled about Buddhist terminology being introduced here, especially when the term conflict might do just fine.

Btw, it's still unclear whether Seattlegal actually intended a Buddhist analogy. Again, the use of the terms "attachment/aversion" was confusing and warranted clarification. In fact, my Post #27 was actually a second attempt to clarify the language of Seattlegal's Post #22. I'm kind of at a loss at this point.

Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? }

 

[Netti-Netti]

Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? }

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

 

[seattlegal]

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

Please notice the smilies:

Here---> Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? and here---> }

 

[seattlegal]

Huh? Not blaming anyone for anything. Btw, that's a sexist remark.

Please accept my apologies.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Please notice the smilies:

Originally Posted by seattlegal
Here---> Blame the woman! {Isn't that what Adam did in Genesis 3:12? and here---> }

I see the smilies. But do you mean them?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Please accept my apologies.

Trying to buy me off now? Unbelievable.



____

 

[Snoopy]

I'm also offended by sexist remarks, but thankfully can be bought off quite cheaply.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Trying to buy me off now? Unbelievable.



____

Well, if you don't want them, I guess I'll just have to eat them myself.

 

[seattlegal]

I'm also offended by sexist remarks, but thankfully can be bought off quite cheaply.

s.

Indeed!

 

[Snoopy]

Indeed!

Oh you know me so well. In fact, probably a little too well.

s.

 

[cyberpi]

Hmmm... the god of bribery. Or is this some sort of Zen stick in disguise?

 

[Snoopy]

Or is this some sort of Zen stick in disguise?

Whatever it's called, I'm bought!

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well, if you don't want them, I guess I'll just have to eat them myself.

I knew it: what looked like a peace offering was a clever ploy designed to increase your usual chocolate-covered almonds intake for the day.

No doubt you think they're calorie free and non-fattening because you offered them ostensibly in the spirit of seeking forgiveness. An interesting mix of supersitition and moral law.

 

[17th Angel]

..Blessed are the peace makers.