Devadatta
Well-Known Member
Devadatta to Thomas, over.
Hi Thomas. First of all, I very much appreciate your taking the trouble to fully respond to my post.
Your fundamental point is clearly stated: I’m misreading scripture, being an outsider. Of course, if that’s true then I’m bound to misread you – so there’s the explanation of why you held fire up to this point! Then again, can you truly read me, that is, without the commentaries, annotations and hermeneutics of my mother-in-law, my children and my local grocer?
All frivolity aside – and you must know what a serious person I am – this issue of insider/outsider points of view was pretty fully framed in my discussions with BB in the Tilting at Windmills Redux thread. It comes down to a question of tact. To the extent a perspective – inside or outside – has any validity at all it should be weighed fairly in its context. Now, this thread was started in “Belief and Spirituality”, and unless the Christian imperium extends over this garden as well, then one should not here be limited to a Christian perspective. Now, I know you are not claiming the contrary, but your somewhat over-easy dismissal of my perspective as “misreading” does suggest to me at least a failure in tact, similar to a few other posters who have some difficulty in stepping out of their Judeo-Christian shoes. On the other hand, you have paid me the respect of picking apart my arguments, which is tactful, and again much appreciated. So I count this issue a wash.
Before I get to your specific points, a few more words on this difficult notion of “misreading”. I’m sure you’re aware that all three Abrahamic faiths accuse the others of the misreading or deformation of scripture, and that there’s no ultimate way to choose between these variant (mis)readings except by faith, that no amount of rationalizing will turn the trick. So the charge of “misreading” in this context is a slippery one to make. There’s also, I feel a kind of Stockholm Syndrome of scriptural tradition; one can become captive of the text, or more importantly a certain reading of the text. This of course has great advantages. Within the tradition one has at one’s disposal a ready panoply of distinctions, categories, rhetorical devices. One doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, I’m sure you can appreciate the disadvantages. One take the pointing finger as the moon, as Zen folks say. Also, where you habitually resort to authorities, I habitually go to parallels. These latter are only outré from inside the tradition; from the outside, they reflect the truth that nothing can be understood strictly in terms of itself. It must be compared with something else.
As to the specific points:
It should be noted that Scripture was never meant to stand alone, or be read uninstructed ... quite the reverse
I quite agree. I’ve said elsewhere that the bible is as far as one can get from being self-evident. Sola scriptura is an absurdity. On the other hand, there are many forms of instruction, aren’t there? And I maintain that other than traditionally sanctioned readings are possible and necessary. As a practical matter, of course, they always have and always will occur. Consider as well that the effects of the bible on world culture go far beyond any conception of orthodoxy. Think of those succession of potentates – from Charlemagne to George Bush – who think of themselves as part of the chosen nation, of fulfilling God’s mission on earth, but have little or no clue of the intricacies of theology on any level. The biblical cat is long out of the bag, along with its myriad “readings”. Orthodox readings are only a few among many.
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
Ah, volative, contemplative, gnostic...what did I say about having all the categories close at hand. This is Catholic cool! However, you do leave the door open a crack when you say that the move away from a strictly authoritarian God was “incremental”. Here we’re in the same ballpark. We only differ perhaps on how complete this move has turned out to be. As you’re aware, my contention is that the biblical God has never quite escaped its origins, and that’s why regression is a frequent occurrence and a constant threat.
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.
One of us is missing the point here – but I guess I’m duty-bound to say it’s not me. My point is that the theme of obedience is creatively transformed in the biblical account, that “obedience” is relocated, internalized and – rightly understood – made part of a more sophisticated game. The “appearance” nature of obedience is what so many literalist readings fail to recognize. This goes to my larger point: that the cult of obedience has always been alive and well, thank you very much, owing to this repeated failure of deeper understanding. You may call this the triumph of the volative over the contemplative or gnostic. I would say, as have many others, that the major cause is political: the pressures of imperial religion and ideological control.
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.
Again, I’m suggesting no such thing. We’re simply speaking, as we both know, from different perspectives. As I said at the outset, when I use terms like these I’m speaking metaphorically. For me this is an etiological myth, which I don’t for a moment take literally. To logic chop here makes little sense from my perspective. It certainly doesn’t deal with the expressive truth of the metaphor. In fact, ultimately this logic chop doesn’t make sense from your point of view either, except perhaps at this rhetorical moment.
(continued below)
Hi Thomas. First of all, I very much appreciate your taking the trouble to fully respond to my post.
Your fundamental point is clearly stated: I’m misreading scripture, being an outsider. Of course, if that’s true then I’m bound to misread you – so there’s the explanation of why you held fire up to this point! Then again, can you truly read me, that is, without the commentaries, annotations and hermeneutics of my mother-in-law, my children and my local grocer?
All frivolity aside – and you must know what a serious person I am – this issue of insider/outsider points of view was pretty fully framed in my discussions with BB in the Tilting at Windmills Redux thread. It comes down to a question of tact. To the extent a perspective – inside or outside – has any validity at all it should be weighed fairly in its context. Now, this thread was started in “Belief and Spirituality”, and unless the Christian imperium extends over this garden as well, then one should not here be limited to a Christian perspective. Now, I know you are not claiming the contrary, but your somewhat over-easy dismissal of my perspective as “misreading” does suggest to me at least a failure in tact, similar to a few other posters who have some difficulty in stepping out of their Judeo-Christian shoes. On the other hand, you have paid me the respect of picking apart my arguments, which is tactful, and again much appreciated. So I count this issue a wash.
Before I get to your specific points, a few more words on this difficult notion of “misreading”. I’m sure you’re aware that all three Abrahamic faiths accuse the others of the misreading or deformation of scripture, and that there’s no ultimate way to choose between these variant (mis)readings except by faith, that no amount of rationalizing will turn the trick. So the charge of “misreading” in this context is a slippery one to make. There’s also, I feel a kind of Stockholm Syndrome of scriptural tradition; one can become captive of the text, or more importantly a certain reading of the text. This of course has great advantages. Within the tradition one has at one’s disposal a ready panoply of distinctions, categories, rhetorical devices. One doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, I’m sure you can appreciate the disadvantages. One take the pointing finger as the moon, as Zen folks say. Also, where you habitually resort to authorities, I habitually go to parallels. These latter are only outré from inside the tradition; from the outside, they reflect the truth that nothing can be understood strictly in terms of itself. It must be compared with something else.
As to the specific points:
It should be noted that Scripture was never meant to stand alone, or be read uninstructed ... quite the reverse
I quite agree. I’ve said elsewhere that the bible is as far as one can get from being self-evident. Sola scriptura is an absurdity. On the other hand, there are many forms of instruction, aren’t there? And I maintain that other than traditionally sanctioned readings are possible and necessary. As a practical matter, of course, they always have and always will occur. Consider as well that the effects of the bible on world culture go far beyond any conception of orthodoxy. Think of those succession of potentates – from Charlemagne to George Bush – who think of themselves as part of the chosen nation, of fulfilling God’s mission on earth, but have little or no clue of the intricacies of theology on any level. The biblical cat is long out of the bag, along with its myriad “readings”. Orthodox readings are only a few among many.
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
Ah, volative, contemplative, gnostic...what did I say about having all the categories close at hand. This is Catholic cool! However, you do leave the door open a crack when you say that the move away from a strictly authoritarian God was “incremental”. Here we’re in the same ballpark. We only differ perhaps on how complete this move has turned out to be. As you’re aware, my contention is that the biblical God has never quite escaped its origins, and that’s why regression is a frequent occurrence and a constant threat.
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.
One of us is missing the point here – but I guess I’m duty-bound to say it’s not me. My point is that the theme of obedience is creatively transformed in the biblical account, that “obedience” is relocated, internalized and – rightly understood – made part of a more sophisticated game. The “appearance” nature of obedience is what so many literalist readings fail to recognize. This goes to my larger point: that the cult of obedience has always been alive and well, thank you very much, owing to this repeated failure of deeper understanding. You may call this the triumph of the volative over the contemplative or gnostic. I would say, as have many others, that the major cause is political: the pressures of imperial religion and ideological control.
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.
Again, I’m suggesting no such thing. We’re simply speaking, as we both know, from different perspectives. As I said at the outset, when I use terms like these I’m speaking metaphorically. For me this is an etiological myth, which I don’t for a moment take literally. To logic chop here makes little sense from my perspective. It certainly doesn’t deal with the expressive truth of the metaphor. In fact, ultimately this logic chop doesn’t make sense from your point of view either, except perhaps at this rhetorical moment.
(continued below)
