Tea with thomas

Giving in to the impulse

2011-03-31T18:05:00.000-07:00

After years of fighting against returning to Christianity, a few years ago I finally gave up and returned to the flock. I use this defeatist language quite consciously, because for years a very strong part of me yearned to return, but I struggled against it. It felt like swimming upstream, but I didn’t want to give in because I wasn’t exactly sure where this impulse came from and if I could trust it. So what changed? Did I end up making sense of the impulse? Not really. In a way, I decided that it didn’t matter. And that fighting it didn’t really make sense. So I gave up, and gave in.

As I mentioned above, the reason I took so long to make a decision was because I was suspicious and confused about what was pulling me back to Christianity. The mystics among you might explain it as a some sort of spiritual movement. A cerebral Christian might say that it was the natural conclusion to years of seeking, finally coming to terms with undeniability of a perceived spiritual Truth. The cynic or unbeliever would say that I simply gave into a religious indoctrination that I have been unable to shake off since my childhood. At different times, I have agreed with all of you to a certain extent. I have seen my pull as something spiritual, as something intellectual, or delusional.

For a long time, I really struggled with this issue. I agonized over whether I was the subject of a kind of pavlovian conditioning that involved a church bell instead of a dinner bell. At my most cynical I was pretty sure that even though my rational mind knew that it was just a bell, I couldn’t help but salivate. But other days I would wake up certain that the more study and searching I did (which, in my defense, was quite a bit), and the farther I distanced myself from Christianity, the more reasonable it seemed. But I still couldn’t help but wonder how much of my brain was hardwired to see certain arguments and realities as reasonable. But, after a while, I realized something: it didn’t really matter what was pushing me towards a certain set of beliefs.

I came to realize that I would never be happy without Christianity. Whether it was because it had become undeniable, or because it was hardwired within me, all my attempts to disprove it or leave it behind were simply making me more unhappy. So I changed tactics. I embraced it. I thought, "if the whole point of this is happiness* and the only way I will ever be happy is to be a Christian. It doesn't matter why I am inexorably drawn back towards these things, the fact of the matter is that I am. So be it."

Now, I recognize the weaknesses of this approach. Heck, I even recognize how intellectually sloppy and even irresponsible it is, to a certain degree. At the same time, I cannot argue with the resulting peace that has come with this decision. I am also aware of all the other psychological forces at work, and how hard they are to extricate from the process, and that in the end I had to accept that the resulting peace of acceptance would be the same, regardless of what the driving force was. In some ways, perhaps this can help people who have been miserably fighting these forces for a long time too.

*I’ll admit that this premise is appoint of a lot of philosophical contention...

------

I hesitate to post the next section because: a) I don’t think it’s very good; b) I would much rather people discuss the ideas above. But I suppose I’ll post it anyway, in the hopes that it won’t dominate the comments section.

I realize that much of my thinking above is based on the idea that the ultimate goal of Man’s spiritual search is contentment, not Truth. As it says in the blog’s Caveat section. I am not a philosopher, and am not looking for a battle of logic. Nevertheless, here are some of my thoughts on why this makes sense to me:

First of all, in my search for spiritual truth, I am dealing with something essentially unknowable or unprovable (not to be confused with untrue). There are plenty of brilliant, genius people on every side of this issue. In the end, some sort of personal choice is unavoidable. You may base it on your interpretation of the facts, your gut feeling, or a combination, but in the end, as with Captain Planet, the power is yours.

If spiritual truth is therefore reasonably unknowable, the purpose of a spiritual quest is not simply to find "the Truth." If it were, then it would be quixotic at best. From a pragmatic perspective, we must accept that we are really seeking to find Peace. We are trying to find a place where our brains are comfortable enough to make the aforementioned "choice," that leap of faith.

But why is peace and faith important? Because we are restless and unhappy. I really don't think that anyone goes looking for spiritual enlightenment because they are happy. There is something inside us that needs satisfaction. If struggling against Christianity was ultimately making me unhappy, it seemed to me that it also defeated the ultimate purpose of my spiritual quest. After all, it seemed that a very strong part of me had already decided that it was comfortable with, or even needed, the Christian faith as a framework within which to continue seeking greater and greater inner peace. Even if there was the danger that I was basing my decision on an urge that was not completely my own, if I was never going to be able to come to logical proof of any of my reasons for making spiritual choices, what did it matter? Greater peace and happiness (and an unavoidable set of doubts) would be the product of any leap of faith or decision.

I suppose I must add that, despite this rationalization, I don’t think that this is the greatest gain that Man can derive from seeking for Truth. I simply think it is our greatest motivation. Hopefully, a search for truth will yield it, but seeing as how it is impossible to work from a provable and objective position, one must work from within one's human limitations.

Book Review: "A History of Christianity..." by, Diarmaid MacCulloch

2011-03-16T14:03:00.000-07:00

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

In a way, this book was both the cause and effect of my renewed interest in pursing my doubts and interest in the faith I've adhered to most of my life. It was the effect because I never would have started (much less finished) this 1000+ tome if I had not already been interested in the topic. But it also served as a catalyst, bringing to light theological issues that I had ignored, forgotten, or of which I had never even thought. Canon, creed, authorship, human error, heresy, politics, theological nitpicking, plurality, ecumenism, grace, works, scripture, tradition, authority, historicity... this book got me to think of these things anew as I watched them develop along the timeline of Christian history.

MacCulloch, the author, goes farther back on the timeline than what you would logically think of as purely Christian history; after all, the title claims to speak of the 3000 year history of a religion that has officially only been in existence around 2000 years. But it is impossible to speak of Christianity without addressing Judaism, as well as the philosophical developments of the Hellenistic mediterranean. From there he flies forward through the historical Christ, the early church, the development of the imperial church and the eastern churches, the Churches that eventually came from the patriarchate of Constantinople, the impact of islam, the Church during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the spread of the church across the globe, and finally the impact of American Evangelicalism. Not half bad for a one volume book.

The few faults I could find with this book are those of every history book, they will inevitably favor certain historical theories and ideas over other ones. This especially happens in the first 200 pages, where the story is a bit more uncertain and theoretical. And like most historians, MacCulloch favors certain figures with more attention than other people might have (Origen comes to mind) and is oddly succinct about others (I thought his section of Aquinas was quite succinct, and I can't remember hearing Duns Scotus even mentioned). But despite these acceptable and expected shortcomings, I found that the author is delightfully openminded and objective, keeping a respectful and enthusiastic tone about most every aspect of the Christian religion. He is quite candid about both the good and the bad effects that Christianity has had on the world.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book as a way to become familiar with the cultural and historical context in which Christianity exists today. It is readable and enthralling. I haven't seen a book of its type on the market which can rival it.

Book review: "The Last Word..." by, NT Wright

2011-03-14T07:37:00.000-07:00

The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture.

ECA (my evangelical high school) dedicated a fair portion of their curriculum to biblical studies. Not only that, but they were fairly in-depth (more so than my required bible survey courses in college). But for the most part they were so out of date that they were bordering on ridiculous and obsolete in many areas. In the 90's we were using books written in the 70s and 80s that still represented the theology of the 50s. Very conservative theology of the 50s. As a result, when many of us left the high school, were faced with the real world and with up to date ways of thinking, we found our faith floundering. To a great degree, I think that many of the frustrations and doubts that former ECAers have with Christianity aren't doubts about the religion itself but with the image of it that we grew up with. The more I research and study theology, the more pluralistic it seems, and the more freedom that brings. N.T. Wright represents what I wish we had been taught in high school; not necessarily a representative of what I believe, but of what and how I wish we had been taught. He still represents a traditional view of the Bible and of Christianity, but he is up to date, openminded, and very well educated. If describing someone as traditional but not conservative makes any sense, that is what he is. Representative of this fact is the book I am currently reading The Meaning of Jesus, in which he dialogues with his friend Marcus Borg, prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, about the different historical and theological views on Jesus (I'll review this when I am done).

Now, "The Last Word" was a short book (about 150 pages) and it tried to address a lot of things: different views on the bible, errors of the enlightenment and postmodernism, errors of fundamentalism, the importance of historical context, the Bible as a narrative view of the divine/human struggle, etc. Of course, the book is too short to really address any of these things properly and really falls short in the postmodern sections. Nevertheless, it was an enjoyable overview of this man's theology and made me want to read more of his stuff. In a way it was comforting simply to hear someone discuss these issues in an intelligent manner, which in turn made me feel less like a fool for being so preoccupied with them. Did it change the way I think about anything? Not much. Did it encourage me to continue with my questions? Definitely.

The problem of interpretation

2011-03-09T21:03:00.000-08:00

I have been struggling with the bible for as far back as I can remember. I have never been comfortable with it. In part, I think it is because I was never taught to read it in a way that I can respect. Instead, school and church took a more "obey it. it is law" kind of approach, where I was simply expected to believe and not question. That demands a certain amount of faith that I have never had. Church perhaps had its reasons to do so (it is a church after all, made up of people who share the same core beliefs), and it has a necessary presupposition of biblical authority without which would be impossible to advance any sort of teaching. But I do place more blame on my christian school, which gave extreme priority to a right wing, non-intellectual, literalist approach to hermeneutics that seemed to fly in the face of any contemporary studies of philosophy, literary theory, or even biblical exegesis itself. Even as a teenager I couldn't help but have a hard time swallowing much of what they were trying to teach me.

As I grew up it became clear that a fundamentalist/literalist approach to scripture was not only ridiculous, it was itself unbiblical (just take the absurd flights of fancy that creationists are forced to take in order to justify this sort of behavior as an example). After all, much of the Bible was written not as literal instruction, but as poetry, allegory, etc. Of course, once you realize that the bible must be interpreted (though any literary theorist will tell you that even the most "literal" approach necessitates interpretation) then the threat of overwhelming subjectivity is nearly paralyzing.

Of course, I just made it worse by majoring and then getting a MA in literature. Not only that, but I have done so in the midst of the so-called post-modern age, the age of deconstruction. Derrida, Fish, Lacan, and the rest of their ilk have called into question (though admittedly full of paradoxes themselves) the availability, knowability and expressibility of knowledge through words (and therefore, at all). Everything seems like a power play of subjectivity. While this provides delicious and infinite approaches to a literary work, it is completely disconcerting when it comes to a text that is supposed to contain Truth.
Now some people may say that the Bible is different (and as a christian I should certainly hope so) because it is the living word of God and because the Holy Sprit empowers us in its readings. While this sounds great in theory, in historical practice we can see a church filled with schisms and heresy, all stemming from interpretative differences. Even if we accept that the Bible has authority we still run into the hermeneutical problem of how to access it.

Even NT Wright (a theologian whom I enjoy very much, but who isn't able to give a much better reason than the one I was given in my youth: postmodern interpretation is wrong just because) admits the problem: "... a tension developing between authority and interpretation: How far can a reinterpretation of the text go before it ceases to carry the authority which was the point of interpreting it in the first place?" His solution leans on tradition of interpretation and context. I can partially get on board with this, for New Historicism is also a product of the post-modern critical era and it has quite a bit in common with what he advocates.

I know this post is poorly structured and probably incoherent, and therefore meaningless to most of you (especially the critical theory jargon bits), but I am open to comments, disagreements, and reading suggestions.

Reopening the blog (again)

2011-03-05T21:29:00.000-08:00

To those who are old readers: "welcome back."
To those who are new readers: "welcome."

This is a blog that evolved from a previous blog that focused on the spiritual and religious questions of a lost college student. But it didn't go very far last time I re-opened it, perhaps because I was too distracted with other things, or exhausted and tired of the anxiety that comes with asking questions to which you may never get a clear answer.

So why am I reopening this blog now? I have come to a point in my life where I can no longer simply float along ignoring all the nagging theological and philosophical questions that I have regarding faith and religion in my own christian context. It is humbling to see how many of my old questions (canon, scriptural authority and interpretation, authorship, human meddling in the construction of dogma, the availability and knowability of Truth, etc) are still just as pressing as they were back in the day. I would like to think that I come to this task with a greater sense of purpose, humility and maturity than I did 4-5 years ago; but I would be lying if I said that this process has been any less anxiety producing than it was back then. If anything, I have been gifted with a bit more experience under my belt (which in turn has created patience) and with time to read and research these topics more carefully.

So, if you will, feel free to join me in this adventure of understanding and acceptance that we call faith. Please feel free to comment, offer advice and questions, and to agree and disagree with me.

Introductory Rant

2008-08-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

After a day of reading about different aspects of Christianity (such as its relation to Judaism, the influence of neoplatonism, and the history of ecclesiastical councils...) I found myself suddenly overwhelmed by the seemingly unending strings of theological thought and possibility. Reeling, I went to take a shower to collect my thoughts... I groaned in frustration. "How can anyone claim to adhere to anything? So much of what we follow is the result of arbitrary human decision! It all seems so subjective!"
And indeed it does. And as such, shouldn't it be studied in detail before it is affirmed by a believer? But then, how can anyone but the most studious theologian ever make an informed decision? How can someone say the Nicene creed without having studied the council's decisions and the "heresies" it tried to correct? Why do western branches of Christianity accept the christology offered by the council of Chalcedon, but not the oriental churches? Does it even matter? (To give you an idea of why is seems so petty sometimes: the council of Chalcedon established that the nature of Christ is both fully human and fully divine in separate natures. The Oriental Churches (not to be confused with the Eastern Church), who accepted the previous councils, rejected this conclusion however, stating that that Christ's divine and human nature are not separate, but that he is of one nature that is both equally divine and human. To me, it almost seems like a question of semantics, arbitrary and subjective). From there it all splinters. Every church, every council, every denomination... splinters of interpretation, every branch claiming to have that special insight... And most members not even knowing what it is that they stand for, what they believe.

It is in times like these that I hold orthodox Jews in highest regard. It is no wonder that they spend such great amounts of their youth in study, scrutinizing their scriptures and commentaries. In the end, their awareness of their beliefs at least justifies their faith. So many Christians have no clue why they hold something to be true, they merely do. And among those who have studied their faith, most have merely studied "their way", with no real way to say if theirs is the "best" dogma because they haven't studied other theological alternatives. Sadly, even our seminarians tend to be stuck in "defensive theology", learning about other views from militaristic perspectives created to shoot down other ideas without any real desires for objectivism.

But even so, not everyone has the time nor the mental ability to dissect theology. This is where protestantism finds itself looking absurdly hypocritical. It staunchly defends individual rights of scriptural interpretation and looks down on Catholicism's emphasis on tradition. And yet, the average protestant believer, nay the average protestant church even, relies on traditional interpretation just as much as the church of Rome does. At least the catholics acknowledge their debt and reliance on past decisions. I suppose protestants at least have the luxury of dissent if they so please and the awareness of human error. But it is this same awareness that is driving me mad. Unable to simply rest in the decisions of our forefathers, I find myself compelled to go back farther and father, demolishing thousands of years of religion in an attempt to find a clean base on which to start building. Now, probably I will end up using those same bricks to rebuild my beliefs, but it is a maddening process because it is so large. I often pull out one brick, only to have 7 more fall on my head, leaving me dazed and overwhelmed.
In the end, I try to stick to the scriptures (and try not to think about the cannon, because that is another maddening issue) and use them to find the basics. Fortunately, when I really get swamped, I can always fall back on "God is Love" and his greatest commandment. Those beliefs tend to stay strong, and following them tends to keep me out of trouble.

This has turned into quite the rant. Obviously my mind is going back and forth this evening. I'll try to have a more coherent post next time.

Spiritual Books part 2

2007-11-02T18:49:00.000-07:00

I meant to finish this post a long time ago, but here we go.
So, I talked about what is wrong with most spiritual writing, but surely there are good books out there too, right? Well, yes, few and far between, but yes. I will talk about some of the ones that have meant something to me:

When it comes to traditional christian writing, I have read very few books that I have liked. I can think of several books that I found acceptable (Raggamuffin Gospel, Blue Like Jazz), but I wouldn't say that they impacted my life in any noticeable way, nor would I say that they were "good" per say, though I know many others who have thought of them as such. Books on apologetics (the defense of faith through reason) are sort of interesting hypotheticals, but nothing more to me. In truth, some of the most meaningful explicitly christian writings that I have read have come from both the early/medieval church or some contemporary catholic writers. While I don't always agree with all of their points of view, they tend to come across without pretension and with a bit more true artistic sensibility (in contrast with some wannabe post-modern christian writers who try way to hard to be poetic).

Which brings me to an important point. I am weird. I get that. But I tend to receive spiritual "enlightenment" (so to speak) through less direct and more subjective means. I've understood many biblical accounts through classical music much better than any sermon has ever been able to explain them to me. Looking at certain paintings has brought a greater spiritual understanding than any book. So when it comes to books, I have always grasped spiritual concepts through literature and myth rather than through direct explanation. If that makes any sense.

Now for the sake of writing, I will divide literature into two types: lit written by christians with direct christian undertones and literature that is "secular."

I hate to be cliché, but in the first category, CS Lewis really is one of my favorites. When I reread the Chronicles of Narnia a couple years ago I was amazed at the amount of wisdom and simplicity of explanation contained within them. I don't think I understood the transcendent meaning of sacrifice until I read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe a few years back. And the concept of Heaven has never seemed more appealing or real than the one hinted at in The Last Battle.
Another similar, but much more abstract, author is George Macdonald. Books like Phantastes or At the Back of the North Wind are also full of... stuff.
In the realm of christian biography, Thomas Merton's life story A Seven Storey Mountain was particularly good. He is a man who became a Trappist monk in the 50s. He tells his whole life story, from childhood, to hedonistic twenties, to devout christian, to monk. For one thing, the book is wonderfully written and praised by everyone from Evelyn Waugh to Graham Green, and on top of that it is wonderfully sincere and insightful.

In what I guess we can call secular literature there have been a lot of books that have "spoken" to me.
Ironically, during some of the darkest moments, Existentialist and Absurdist authors really guided me back in the right direction. Bleak stories by Camús, Weisel, Dostoevsky, Unamuno, Kafka, (and many films actually)... made me comfortable with the absurdity of reason, the uncertainty of existence, and for some reason the existence of a higher power (and the unavoidability of interaction with it).

Many other books and writers have left their mark as I have read their books, including the writings of Oscar Wilde on Jesus (not much mind you, but he has interesting insight into his character), but most notably Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. If you haven't read Siddhartha, do so. I would describe it as an Eastern Existentialist version of Pilgrim's Progress. A spiritual journey through India at the time of the life of the Buddha. Not only is it's poetic, beautifully simple language take you to seventh heaven, but it's conclusions and steps are surprising and wonderful in themselves. Also, While I don't agree with everything Whitman says, reading his poetry is often a spiritually enriching activity in itself. But then again, that happens a lot with poetry.

I'm sure there there are other books that I am forgetting, but those are some of the ones that leap to mind.
What spiritual books have you loved?

Edit: I forgot to mention Annie Dillard and Anne Lamott. Both are thoroughly respectable spiritual authors, though I admit that the former resonates with me more than the latter.

Spiritual Books part 1

2007-10-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

I am obviously obsessed with spiritual matters. It is one of my main preoccupation's. It keeps me awake at night, proverbially mostly but literally at times. The essential contradictions are endless: between what I understand and believe, between what I cannot accept and what I have been taught, between what I need and what I want... Now, if only my actions weren't as contradictory as my thoughts and feelings. Which could be dissected as something else altogether... but for another time.
Anyway, it makes sense that I would end up reading up on spiritual material, or at least that I would want to. The problem is that quality spiritual reading is hard to come by. Not to say that there isn't a vast quantity of it out there.
But most books of a Spiritual nature tend to be quite... bad. You have the self help ones, the mushy sentimental ones, the hallmark card ones, the fire and brimstone ones, the "12 step" ones, the "inspirational" ones... Not that what they are trying to say is necessarily bad, it is just that the way they do it is terrible.
You may think I am talking specifically about Christian stuff, but hells no, it seems like every religion has its mediocre literature. Just go by any religious or spiritual bookstore to see what I am talking about. The New Age crap, the Evangelical slop, the Buddhist tripe... Its hard to come by good stuff these days. Half of those spiritual writers just dont know how to write.

For now, I will focus on the Christian writers, because those are the ones I have had the most experience with. Evangelical writers in particular.
Most of them are too watered down. Pop-spirituality and self help. I just cant get into them. I am reticent to say any names, lest people who actually enjoy them get offended, but I will mention a few. There is nothing innately wrong with these books, just as there is nothing innately wrong with pop culture in general. If it has an audience that gets a kick out of it, then why not? I love TV programs, who gives? But when it comes to books and especially religious material... I can't take oversimplification or triteness.
Or the ones that are supposed to be inspirational and just end up being cheesy, like Max Lucado. I've tried to read him and his kind several times and found myself rolling my eyes.
Or the authors that attempt to write prose fiction or something like that, like Brian Mclaren and his New Kind of Christian books. I had those books recommended to me by several people I respect and ended up giving up after the 70 pages due to its terrible writing. There is a whole slew of emergent-christian, post-modern evangelical "lit" that has come out lately in the attempt to say the same things over again in a cool new voice that have failed miserably. I recently got through a book by Rob Bell that wasn't terrible once you got over his pretentious writing style. Blue Like Jazz had a couple decent points but played dangerously with some of these same issues. Like I said, many of these people have some good things to say, but they have no idea how to say them.

And then there are the books that interest me more, those on theology. These books have problems all of their own though. Harold Bloom said of Theology: All theologians, from Philo to the present, are allegorists, and since allegory is irony, and demands great literary insight, theologians almost always fail..." This kind of sums up the two problems I have with reading theology. The study of scriptures is an intensely literary affair, but this aspect is missing from most of its researchers and theorists. Not to say that that invalidates their work, but it does limit their interpretation in many ways. And, of course, it kills any possibility that most of them will be enjoyable to read. Dry. Dry. Very Dry.

Anyway, that is my opinion on the general mainstream of Religious writing, especially christian. I will write more on this later though, mentioning exceptions and spiritual writing I have found out of these types.

An intro....

2007-10-10T02:37:00.000-07:00

OK folks, here is the new, revamped, version of The Skeptics Corner. I have changed the name because this is about more than just skepticism now. I am much more at peace with what I believe or try to believe (in some cases). Nevertheless, I am still, admittedly, quite open to new religious ideas and spiritual reflections and very much doubt the modern christian church that seems to think it has all the answers to all the questions worth asking.

Because, yes, I am a christian (though I hate the connotations associated with that word nowadays). It took me a while to be able to say that. I wasn't quite sure of anything for the longest time, but have slowly come to accept the teachings of Christ as the most viable path to cosmic truth and spiritual fulfillment. Now, as to what that means I am still trying to figure out. It certainly doesn't close a bunch of doors, or limit truth to a small group of people. I believe it is much bigger than any denomination, bigger than Protestantism or Catholicism, bigger even than "christianity" if that makes sense. I am still very much a skeptic when it comes to many of the things people seem to take for granted and dont mind saying "hang on a minute..." when something doesn't seem to "click."

So anyway, I am calling this blog "Tea with Thomas" in honor of the doubting disciple. I always liked him. Perhaps because I also am a doubter, a person who needs to figure things out for himself (sometimes to the great irritation of those who seem to "get it" without any apparent process). People usually treat Thomas with a bit of contempt for his "lack of faith", however, I love the fact that he was so brutally honest and upfront about his doubts. Imagine being in a room with 10 of your best friends all flippin out about how excited they were that their spiritual guide had come back from the dead. In a 1 against 10 move, he had the gall to say "hang on a minute". Who knows, perhaps other disciples were also having their doubts but were scared to admit them, we will never know I guess. And in the end, who's questions were answered? and more interestingly, who was it that felt Christ's wounds? Experienced an intimate understanding that others probably never had?

So anyway, this blog will be used (much as it was before) to say "Hmmm" about religious issues. I sure don't have it all figured out yet. By the way, I have included some of the older posts from "The skeptics corner". Some I left out, some I included. Some still reflected many ideas and thoughts I still have, other petty ones were discarded.

Truth in many places

2006-02-02T03:30:00.000-08:00

If you are a Christian then you must believe the biblical promise of "seek and you shall find." This, of course, refers to the great spiritual searches that we all attempt during our lifetimes: our search for God, peace, our place in the universe, the essence of Truth. Rationally we must also accept religion to be the human product of this search. Religion, whether it is Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else, is a reflection of Man's yearning for spiritual satisfaction and Truth. Alas, Religion also demonstrates the way men can get lost and lose track of the goal. Every organized religion in the world has lost its way. Granted that some, say classical polytheism, are farther off than others, say Christianity. But according to the Biblical promise quoted before, these religions, as the fruits of Man's searches, must have some nuggets of truth. I mean, even the error of polytheism has yielded the truth of the existence of the supernatural and the soul.

It is stuff like that that makes me wonder what other truths are readily available due to the products of other religious searches. I am not speaking of relativism. I am speaking of absolute truths that Christianity has lost sight of because of human error, and that other religions have found or held on to (due to the nature of the practice perhaps). Even if you do not believe that other beliefs can find theological or dogmatic truths you must, at the least, admit that humans around the globe have run into various effective ways of engaging the spiritual realm.

I remember reading a national geographic special about the human mind in which electrode tests and brain scans were performed on people around the globe for various different reasons. One of the most remarkable results that the scientists recorded was when they measured the brain reactions of a Buddhist priest in meditation. They found that the monk's part of the brain that registers negative emotions (such as pain, sadness, stress, etc) had the lowest recorded brain activity in any test subject. The astounded scientists declared the man to be, according to their tests, the "happiest man on earth." In other words, during meditation the Buddhist had learned to master his mind and ignore distracting negative feelings. However you take this, you must admit that the monk had mastered the technique of putting his mind at rest and finding, at least at the psychological and neurological level, inner peace. I have read accounts of monks who have developed these talents so much that they have been able to engage them even in times of great external strife such as war, famine, etc.

I would think that the art of meditation would be one of great use to the modern Christian. It was one that, at many levels, was very much alive among the early church leaders, especially among early cenobites such as the desert fathers and such. The practice, method and discipline of learning to clear your mind of distractions and stress in order to be in a good place to engage spiritually seems like something that would be worth acquiring by persons of any faith.

Another interesting thing to note is commonalities between many religions around the world. Even in small details such as worship and ritual. Take chanting for example. It is present in everything from Tibetan Buddhism to Native American spirituality, to Christianity. On a side note, it is interesting to how most Protestants associate medieval "Musica Sacra" with Roman Catholicism, yet the middle ages had no differentiation between Protestant and Roman Catholics, there was just Western and Eastern Christianity. If you look back even farther in history you find a totally unified (and chanting) Christianity. But I digress. I find it fascinating that the modern Christian traditions have discarded such a widely used practice. There must be something to it if people from all around the world spontaneously and independently used it in religious practice. There must be something there, if not intrinsically spiritual then at least psychologically beneficial way for humans to disengage their minds from earthly matters. I then think to the rise in popularity of electronic music in countercultural Christian circles and conclude that it must have some modern equivalence. The very nomenclatures of electronic musical subgenres like trance and chill-out but seem to point at this spiritual/psychological connection. I would wonder how many other spiritual practices, disciplines or even basic truths we are missing out on merely because we are too afraid to look.

Comments

Erin said...

One thing, perhaps?

I wonder whether we ought to be more careful in including the spirit of Buddhist medidation in Christianity.

As you've said, "However you take this, you must admit that the monk had mastered the technique of putting his mind at rest and finding, at least at the psychological and neurological level, inner peace. I have read accounts of monks who have developed these talents so much that they have been able to engage them even in times of great external strife such as war, famine, etc."

I will say from my experience with Buddhism, that more often than not you are not allowed to admit to pain, suffering, the like. While I am not saying that meditation should be thrown out all together, I am saying that I appreciate your emphasis on the desert fathers and mothers more than buddhist monks. I would not define rest and inner peace as the negation of an awareness of what is going on in the rest of the world but instead, as a definitive trust in the sovereignty and immanence of God. It is also worth noting that the prophets had no inner peace. Their hearts were broken for the covenant. I think Buddhism defines itself as a vision of the absence of the problem of evil itself and I believe that's risky ground.

Also, wondered if you be interested in reading my thesis? "Heschel's Perspective on Divine Sovereignty: Open Theism and the Pathos of God". Let me know. I think there's a lot in there that you might be interested in...especially regarding some key differences between Greek and Jewish thought. Now, I've a feeling I should have added Eastern in there as well!

As always, I love to see you writing. Hope your break is starting off well.

Peace, bro.
5:20 AM

-----
Ryan said...

hmm... you are filled with insight as always. I would totally be interested in reading your thesis, though I must admit taht my knowledge of Heschel is essentially null. Email it to me and I'll read it when I get home next week.

Yes, I see what your problem with teh Buddhist approach is. Yet, I still think that being able to use exercises to block out the external in order to better engage the internal are of great human value. Essentially chanting does the same to a degree. Recently I have been reading on St. Ignatius' spiritual exercises and they have quite a bit of this kind of thing, things that I initially thought "whoah, that sounds almost eastern"
2:40 PM

-------
kenaka said...

This isn't my definitive answer, it's late at night and I've just served dinner to 30 of the drunkest people I've ever seen (led by an Irishman, of course). The first thing that comes to mind is to know what are you looking for. I don't see what is the great thing about sitting and finding inner peace for yourself. This World is a gift as far as I'm concerned, each person is a world and we are somewhat discoverers. I don't want to sit in a corner and feel inner peace, my brain disengaged and basically neutralized. I want to be feeling different things, discovering others, knowing people, in those battles the monks sit and meditate about. The monk egotistical approach isn't, for me, stumbling across the truth, maybe finding an interesting technique to not have to engage with the World. I'll read this again tomorrow and see if I still agree.
3:35 PM

--------
Ryan said...

I feel like you guys have missed the whole point of this post by zoning in on the buddhist thing. It isnt even about finding inner peace or whatever, that isnt the point, it is a means to an end. My point is how many more means or methods are out there that are universally applicable.
1:05 AM

------
Manny Jr said...

I am glad you put the last post because I was about to reemphasize what Kenny and Erin said.

In that case, I remember what is said in Matthew by Christ that if any preaches another Gospel than the one that is preached, let him be damned.

I think that Christianity is one of the only religions if not the only that is exclusive when it comes to its definition of truth. Indeed I believe in the absolute truth of God's word and of God as defined in the Bible. Having this be my guiding point, truth is not found in other religions and if meditation is what you seek after that is not from other religions but from Christianity which has been twisted.

Therefore, do other religions hold to certain truths in their religion? Probably so, but i believe that they have been taken from the only source of truth which comes from God and He has revealed His truth in the Bible.

Sorry if that sounds a little narrow minded. I don't mean to be but I think to step into the realm of trying to identify truth in other places extends the reference point from God being the source of truth to other faulty sources.
8:26 AM

---------
Jenn said...

Manny, You said "I think to step into the realm of trying to identify truth in other places extends the reference point from God being the source of truth to other faulty sources."

I'd have to disagree with you. Looking for Truth in other religions is not changing the reference point away from God. It is searching for God in more than one place.

According to the "religions of the book", Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there is no truth outside of their particular belief systems. This is a paticularity of these three religions. But, as Christians, if we believe this, we believe that God is an Absolute Truth.

However, that DOES NOT mean that he has revealed parts of his immense nature ONLY to one person. A deeper analysis of ANY religion would show that there are signs of God's interaction. However, this have been severely distorted.

As for meditation, Kenny said, " I don't see what is the great thing about sitting and finding inner peace for yourself." That's only the point of meditation in ONE (Buddhist) tradition. Meditation in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism AND Christianity is designed to help us connect with Christ.

Meditation is a scriptural concept. Think of David. In Buddhist tradition, it is the emptying of the mind. However, in Hindu practice it is centering the mind on the Divine to attain unity with it. Now, the unity I do not agree with, but centering the mind on God to better understand him, hear his voice and feel his love is not only scriptural but should be part of every Christian's spiritual discipline.

Sorry that this is long. I've spent an entire semester studying various religions, their doctrines and practices and I've found that Christians often shun what they don't understand and don't take the time to look more deeply. Besides that, I've begun my own meditation practice (in which I have set aside time to put you before God) and I have found that it not only is INCREADIBLY difficult, it has also reaquainted me with God.
6:06 PM

------
Jenn said...

Oops, when I wrote about meditation in Judaism, Islam and Christianity I meant to say that it is to connect us with GOD not Christ (Christ is obviously exclusive to Christianity).

Love or salesmanship? Love or ego?

2006-01-27T03:24:00.000-08:00

I am not much of a papist, but I am not one of those people who think that the pope
is the devil incarnate, the antichrist leading people astray. In fact, I hold a tremendous respect for the pope. While historically the world has seen many a bad popes, the ones we have had since after WWII have been, I believe, very devout, good and wise people intent on leading one of the biggest religions in the world as best as they possibly can. Again, there is way too many things (dogmatically speaking) that I cannot accept about the papacy for me to ever be able to become a catholic, but I do dig a lot of what they say. But I digress... this post is not about the pope really.

The pope delivered his first encyclical a couple of days ago. People expected Benedict to deliver a highly theological document since he was the cardinal in charge of theology prior to ascending to the papacy, instead he gave an encyclical based mostly on God's love. He began speaking of marital love and the corruption that society has had on both it and sex. Then he went on to speak about the church's way of expressing love: charity. What he said about it really struck me: "Those who practice charity in the church's name will never seek to impose the church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends,"

I think Protestants have especially failed at this task. How many times has a "ministry" been created with no ulterior motives for evangelism? It is very rare. We are just like those mormon missionaries you see that are super nice to you until they realize that there is no chance you are converting and then they lose interest. How many churches do you know are involved in a completely secular charity that affords no opportunity to proselytize? Even many missionaries that go to work with the poor or sick in 3rd world countries aren't really thinking about converting them? I am not saying that evangelism is wrong mind you. It is fine. It is good and an honorable thing to do. But how many times does that just become a goal for a church or Christian? "we need to go out and win souls!" The concept of winning and losing souls in evangelism becomes like losing the football in a match. I'm not saying its even conscious, but it is there. I wonder what it would be like if people went out with a mental decision not to talk to anybody about Jesus at all and just serve them out of love instead of searching for the self fulfillment that you get from being a soul reaper.

Bah, this post doesnt make sense... it is late and I'm tired and annoyed. I just get fed up with people moving through motions without any love whatsoever. I mean truly being concerned about someone's soul out of love is one thing, but simply turning the masses into numbers, into goals, into targets lacks any sort of godly motivation at all, and I see so many people that do just that. It gives them a rush or something. Where did that "pure and generous love" that Benedict talks about go? Where are the people that serve and love and without trying to achieve other ends? Why does the world think christians have more in common with salesmen than with red cross workers? Again... I am ranting... dont even bother commenting, this is incoherent for sure...

comments
------
Miss O'Regan said...

Totally coherent!, how many times have we heard "preach at all times, and use words only if necessary ". If God is really real in our lifes, people should be able to see it and want it for themselves without having to hear our sermons&preachings all the time.
8:09 AM

-----
Erin said...

Dearest Ryan,

Three things:

1. It's as coherent as anything mused ever is.

2. I like the pope too.

3. What I find particularly interesting about this whole idea is that I find charity to be the simplest way for a Christian to be a Christian and yet, the hardest. It is easy to say, far more difficult to do. I don't know why people want to start with the logical doctrine of evangelization and then move on to the love later. I think it's funny that the one thing we are challenged to do over and over again by Christ, we simply find most difficult to carry out. Maybe that's why we are avoiding loving others through charity? It's hard?

peace,

erin
12:46 PM

------
Jenn said...

I had this really good comment and then I accidentally deleted it. I guess the gods didn't want me to tell you.

My dad and I were talking the other day about how "winning souls" is acutally disrespectful to God. Each of us is created uniquely in the image of God and should be related to uniquely (with love). When, as a church, we go out looking for people to convert based on formula (the four steps to peace with God) or whatever, we are not respecting that person's unique spiritual path toward God, but seeing them as nothing but a number. That is hurtful to that person and disrespectful of God.

Loving them without expecting anything in return, as Benedict said, is Christlike behavior. However, as Erin mentioned, it is so much harder to live than it is to say.
2:01 PM

-----
Manny Jr said...

I think it is interesting to read what Jenn wrote. It made me think of a couple of things. I certainly believe that we shouldn't be about keeping a scorecard of our converts. That is wrong, but we must be about the urgency to boldly share with people if you see that it might be your last opportunity to do so. I think this is the greatest act of love that we can possibly perform for others.

There are a lot of people out there and Jesus himself compared people to sheaves of grain, "the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few." there is a need for love and there is a need for the Gospel to be spread, don't just be one or the other.
10:28 AM

-----
Jenn said...

Manny, I don't see the urgency you do. We musn't think that we are the only ones that can do God's work. Just because you (general you, not specific) don't come into contact with that person again in his or her lifetime, doesn't mean that he won't have a many more opportunities to see Christ. We should be more concerned with listening to the Spirit. Is the Spirit directing us to speak now, or is it most loving to give that person space? Love means patience as well.

The harvest is plentiful. The workers are few. But that doesn't mean chopping everything down at once and going about the work willy nilly. we should take infinite care with each grain, just as Christ would. For some that means speaking then and there. For others it means nothing more than listening, being a friend.
5:19 PM

------
kenaka said...

I think Ryan's right in the protestant's being the main problem here. It's funny how this inmense concentration on being saved by grace has brought us away from just honoring people, sharing love, and letting them make a decision.
I do see the urgency, however, but more because people really do need Jesus. There's no doubt about that, the quicker they meet him, the better. It's the pragmatism behind making more "converts" that bothers me. Evangelism is very important, but it is about sharing love at the end of the day, that's his message, Paul says it summed up in one commandment (well, Jesus said it too): "Love your neighbor as yourself". Our goal is to reach lives that do that. It follows, then, that this love will make us share it with others (love is kind...). What power!

Saints and all that jazz

2005-11-30T03:37:00.000-08:00

The other day I was thinking about the Saints of old. Those that non evangelical branches of Christianity still talk about. You have all these traditions and tales about them and what they did and all of that. Children are taught about the lives of the saints and sermons use them as examples. Yet for some reason we don't. On one hand I can understand this because of the overemphasis that they have received from certain people, where respect and reverence for those who led exceptionally holy lives turns into obsessiveness and in some cases idolatry, with them taking precedence over God. Yet on the other hand I wonder if we do not take an similarly extreme stance. I definitely know evangelicals who scowl whenever St. something-or-other is mentioned, like if they were satan's accomplices in leading people to the very gates of hell. Now I already agreed that an erroneous view of saints can lead people astray, but I do not think that it is any fault of the dead Christian anymore than the element Gold is responsible for people's greed. In fact we could do with some more tales of saints and martyrs in the more evangelical traditions. Because in a way our reasoning is a bit skewed since we will talk of the great missionaries of the past or other great believers yet fear mentioning St. Francis of Assisi lest we be branded as papists.

Yet while St. Francis (lets continue with him as an example shall we?) is generally celebrated in the Roman Catholic tradition, he himself cannot be accurately called Roman Catholic in the modern sense because there was no such thing as Protestantism. I find it so ridiculous the way that some protestants act like the real Christians have existed from the time of Christ until the fall of Rome and then reappeared after the reformation, acting like if in the dark ages there were no Christians because the only ones around were papists.

Another thing that I have seen people hold against the Saints of old is the stories attributed to them. Granted that in the middle ages deeds were likely to get distorted by legend and tradition (heck just listen to some of the tales about kings) but I think it is erroneous to throw out all their stories and miracles just because they sound outlandish and supernatural. I know Christians that have no problem recounting tales of miraculous events that happened at a prayer meeting or mission trip that would never believe St. so and so's staff bloomed as he was martyred or that he fed a village with a loaf of bread, or that he healed people all over the countryside. If God can empower Christians today to perform miracles, then why not 700 years ago?

I dunno, just my thoughts. I just hate to see good people vilified, which undoubtedly many of the saints were. They must have done something to be remembered by millions of people hundreds of years later. I'm not saying we have to accept them all with glee, many saints were cannonized or made up to be propaganda for the ruling organized religion of the day. I mean Santiago Matamoros (St. James the Moor Slayer... an embarrassing Spanish favorite) probably isn't one of those we all want to emulate, and is obviously a political creation. But there are many saints whose stories are inspiring and worth appreciation... St. Francis, Mother Theresa, Teresa of Avila, Anthony of Padua, St. Clare... There is much that we could learn from these people.

comments

Manny Jr said...

Excellent conclusions! I completely agree. The Christians today are not any more religious and have more Bible than the Christians who lived before the Reformation. On the contrary, St. Augustine, Anselm, Arius, Nestorius and others while they don't align in some theologies they were devout Christians who were incredible scholars of the Word. I believe they just interpreted the Bible differently much of the time, but I think they believed they were doing the right thing.
5:41 PM

-------
Jenn said...

You missed my favorite: St. John of the Cross. I've always had a love/hate relationship with the saints. There is so much beauty in their lives, but the distortion does bother me. Yet, the stories of their lives, no matter how exaggerated, have something to tell us, right?
5:56 AM

----------
Ryan said...

The virgin mary is another one that has suffered distortion but also protestant backlash... we treat her like a criminal almost. "Bad virgin mary! Bad!" She is fine as long as she stays in the gospels. If we try to think of what she can show us then we are worshiping her. I mean, lets face it, she must have been pretty damn extraordinary for God to point her out as 'blessed are you among women'.
6:13 AM

-----------
kenaka said...

First of all, it's an interesting observation and the revering (in a non-deist way) of saints is good. I find it curious that you would talk so negatively about evangelicals on this aspect considering the kind of teaching that goes on in your old church (Amistad). I can't count the times Flores or Antonio or José Luis , even your mom every once in a while (no, not Manuel, jeje) would use references from St. Augustine or whoever's life. I don't think the "anti-saintness" is as harsh as you paint it, at least not in the Christians that surround me... In fact, in Spain the reactionary element in the Evangelical church is quite logical (dude, the hail virgin things are wacko, some would say satanic with the KKK costumes).
Secondly, I agree on your point of being careful what saint should be revered, the founder of Opus Dei, now cannonized, keeps coming to mind, if anyone is to pray against people becoming an official "Saint", now is the time.
11:09 AM

-------------
Jenn said...

Ryan, you said: "She is fine as long as she stays in the gospels. If we try to think of what she can show us then we are worshiping her."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Mary has all kinds of things to show us. She just does so very briefly. After all, she was an incredibly brave woman, who went against her entire culture because she had a spiritual encounter she couldn't ignore. I don't believe she's on the same level with Christ at all, but she is a woman of God and a saint. Her spiritual walk can teach us just like your spiritual walk can teach me.

Please explain.

--------
Ryan said...

Jenn: what I mean is that I have seen so many people that are so nervous about revering mary in the wrong way that they just keep her in the christmas story and in a couple other bible stories, unwilling to even acknowledge her as a model to emulate and learn from lest they become marianists.

Kenny: I have no way of knowing what attitude Amistad has in regards to this topic since I have not been there reguarly in 4 years. It certainly did not make many references to saints when I was growing up. It is also admissable to say that my perception of evangelicalism has been a bit skewed or lopsided by some of what I experienced in ECA, but only to a cetain extent. Yes, you are also right to point out my secondary bias because of the nature of the evangelical churhc in Spain that has reacted (out of necessity I think) so strongly against the traditions of a very lost spanish catholic church (for the most part). Also it is worth agreeing with you in saying that yes, evangelicals do make reference to many of the early church saints quite often, especially the dogmatic ones like Augustine. But you'll be hard pressed to hear them speak of many later ones.

Knowledge, questions and answers.

2005-11-12T03:41:00.000-08:00

I have been struggling with the concept of the availability of truth. Now many things have been written of these subjects, some I've read, some I havent, and some ideas have come to me through mediums other than paper. And yet, it was not anything that I had read or heard that had particularly set me off the path of intellectual security and into into the hazy moors I find myself in now. The real problem is that nothing can truly be known. I really believe that. My second problem, one compounding upon the first, is that I dont particularly trust the concept of faith.
I suppose that I will start with the first problem at this point. How do we gain knowledge? How do we find reality and truth? Our senses? Our emotions? Something more? On one hand language is surely an inadequate tool to convey truth. How can a couple of syllables really describe an abstract concept? and we come to the table with the presuppositions that language means the same thing to one as it does to another. And yet, language what we use to find truth. Yes, we have abstract thoughts and feelings, but when we try to analyze them in our minds we again have to rely on
words, language, symbol or code. So essentially, if language cannot fully ever express anything with any certainty of objectivity, nothing can truly ever be known. But I digress, I didnt mean to bring up this question of language and truth... that is not really the point. It is not even "the issue." It is just one of the reasons that I have despaired when it comes to knowing truth. But there are many others. Another is merely experience. Looking back, I do not think that any questioning has ever found any answer. All my questions have brought me are more questions.
There was a time when all I wanted was pure ignorance. I idolized it, and to be honest I still do. When you believe that there are no answers, then questioning itself is an anachronism of reason. For months I wallowed in my own despair. In a way I want to think of myself as liberated. As one who has been able to through off the chains of ignorance, open my eyes and see the presumptions and erroneous beliefs I held and as one who has been able to grow and question. And yet, over time I have become incensed with envy towards the naive. Those very persons I loved to despise for their fundamentalism and close-mindedness are the very picture of peace when put next to me. If truth is all in the eye of the beholder (which I dont really believe, I think there is objective truth, I just dont think it can be known... which is depressing), then those people who believe that they have found something are the ones that have. I am the one enslaved by my questioning, they are the ones that are free to believe within their framework of ignorance. In fact the only thing that I can say to truly believe, and I mean this, is that ignorance is indeed bliss. If I were going to have a wish it would not be that I would find answers, it would be that I would not have any questions.

comments:

Jenn said...

Gustav Flaubert once said, "To be stupid, selfish and have good health are three requirements for happiness. Though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost".

-----
Anonymous said...

if you were a philosophy major, you would know the answers by now.

kidd
3:14 PM

---------
Manny Jr said...

one question, "is it true that you can't know any truth?" If it is not possible to know truth then how do you know that that is a true statement?

----------
Ryan said...

Therein lies the paradox doesnt it. If the statement were true then I could cease to search, yet at the same time if it were true then truth would be knowable therefore findable and worthy of pursuit right? So either way searching or not searching is the solution to non-findable truth is it not? Which is all very bizarre. But in the end it just turns into a game of "could god make a rock big enough that he could not move"

-----------
marta said...

the aswer is NO. could god sin?
2:25 AM

----------
kenaka said...

I think your focus is pretty screwed up in this area. You really have to define a few things and position yourself before asking such a complex question (as Manny pointed out, YOU can't really ask it yet, it's not a paradox in your case, its utterly absurd). Philosophy is the science that goes for that question in a constant and serious way, you should read some more there to get in a better position for solving it yourself. I just read the first chapter of Spinoza's "Ethica" last night and would recomend you go back to the 17th century like that to begin seriously thinking about the question of truth. If there really is no way to know truth (at all) there's no reason for you to go on this search (I can't see it at least).
Some would say that the mere ability of having the concept of truth makes it possible, there's your tie-in with language.
In other words, I think you're wrong in your way of seeing the issue, although I agree with some points, such as their being objective truths. How we understand them, however, is a very difficult thing to solve. But if they are there, is logically follows that we have a capacity of knowing them, even if it's like Rumsfield's "Known unknowns". The question, therefore, is how much we can know about this unknown. When can we begin to take an idea, label it as clear and distinct and then carry on from that newly adquired Truth to the next? There has to be something true and constant enough to be able to hold that.
Sorry for being so long, I love this issue...
4:40 AM

-------------
Jenn said...

Just a question to both you (Ryan) and Ken, where do the spiritual realm and logic truly intersect? Are you really trying to define a god by using logic? Isn't God supralogical?
6:17 AM

--------------
Ryan said...

Well, Yes and No, kenny.
First of all I dont follow your logic in your statement "But if they are there, is logically follows that we have a capacity of knowing them".... yes, ok, I agree that if we have a concept of Truth, then it must come from something. But it doesnt follow that that something exists in real life. We have concepts of many things, absolute beauty, unicorns... but it doesnt mean that the actually exist in any reality more extended than the one inside of our mind and the theoretical.
Second, you seem to agree with my point about the impossibility of gaining any view of objective truth. so it follows that the question ends up being not "CAN it be known" but "how much can be known." Yet here lies the problem. It is suddenly a question of quantity and turns into the story of 'The 9 Blind Men and the Elephant' where each man felt a different part of the beast and interpreted it in his own way (one touching the tail and imagining that the elephant was like a snake, another touching a leg and assuming the elephant was much like a tree trunk, etc...). Except that in our case it is a the story of "The Billion bling humans and the Truth," where each of us stumbles around in the dark grasping onto whatever it is that we happen to be lucky enough to find, but never really able to come away with the real picture of what the "elephant" is because we are too insignificant to grasp the entire beast. So there is my true despair. Even if we grasp small pieces (subjective truth) we will never really come away with a clearer image, only more questions raised by others who have grasped different aspects of truth. So I come away with my desire for ignorance... either to be the only one who has touched the elephant and therefore believe my own experience completely, or to have never bumped into the "elephant" at all.

PS: rock and roll! this discussion is moving along!

---------------
marta said...

So the elephant exists, but your incapable to know it entirely. That’s why you’re gonna spend your whole life analysing it (because you cannot abandon yourself to a faith you don’t trust in, of course) without getting it? Well, not a very original way of evading the responsability of belief.
Even if you had never touched the elephant, the elephant would still exist. So, be grateful that you know that at least. Of couse, we all would prefer to follow our own made-up beliefs. Would be easier (not really). We wouln’t have to humble ourselves and admit the superiority of any God. Isn’t that our true problem? Luckily, we have. We ow thankfulness, humbleness and praise to the one who didn’t create a stone big enough so even himself couln’t move, but died for us without any apparent reason but love (because I assume that you know that without that death, we would be lost by now). So I think THIS is the point.

By the way, excuse my crap English.

-----------
kenaka said...

"but it doesnt mean that the actually exist in any reality more extended than the one inside of our mind and the theoretical." Exactly the point, that truth would be the extended stuff in our mind and the theoretical, truth is theoretical after all, it's not a thing you can touch (like an elephant, although you just try touching an elephant...plus they stink).
I don't buy the posmodern deal that any truth is your truth if it works (they couldn't really say that because "works" would imply truth sort of). We agree there is an objective truth. We agree that as humans our brains don't have the ability of grasping it completely, even as a collective (no synergy principle in that case). So what is left? If this is the only presupossitions we are allowed to make, as you said, not much. We can only touch certain truths and feel great about them every once in a while.
However, answering Jenn's question in the meanwhile, Christianity (and some other religions) offers another option. It's called revelation. God is that objective truth (this is an old truth) and in Him is all the Truth. According to the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Bible this God has revealed enough of himself (the objective Truth) through words and his son and the Holy Spirit. To get to this Truth we have to believe (as a choice, not a conclussion to a logical discussion) and accept his Lordship. Then, suddenly, this that seemed to foolish becomes a Truth that has set us free and we cannot deny. That is the amazing thing about the foolishness of Christianity.
I like philosophy because it leads me to see that God is impossible to understand. We get close but the whole truth is only in Him and there is no way to get to it (and the life and the light, by the way) except through his son.
Yes, it is worth discussing how much of the Bible has been manipulated, or wrongly translated, or if we are serving Him in the right way...but without an initial step forward and, practically, blind trust, there can be no faith (please note the difference between trust and faith).
Did any of that make sense? At times it seems clearer and at other times I don't understand a thing.
11:07 AM

-------------
kenaka said...

I like Marta's concept of "responsibility of belief", it sort of flows with that Pascal text that I sent you.
I also would like to say that I understand your desire for ignorance. So did Solomon in Ecclesiasteces (however you write that). It seems from the Biblical story that somehow we cursed ourselves with knowledge, some of us, unfortunately or not, get more than others. That entails a responsibility to choosing wisely (thus Indiana Jones, hoho). Ryan, you have been given a particular ability to adquire knowledge and wisdom, life in that sense will be tougher on you than others, so will the adquiring of it.

---------------
Manny Jr said...

A. How in the world does Kenny have all this time to leave a thousand comments on the blog...jeje

B. I'm with Kenny's point about relativism. It seems that the more we say that we all have a different perspective (subjective) of truth, we have effectively stated that we believe there are no absolutes. Unfortunately in making this statement (even if subconciously) we have shot down our own argument becuase to make such a statement is to affirm absolutes if the original statement will be regarded as a true statement. Therefore if not everything is absolutes, then there have to be some absolutes and thus those absolutes are must be true.

C. I still think Real Madrid is better than Barca. (sorry, tangent, ok back to the subject)

D. Therefore since there have to be absolutes, then those absolutes exist somewhere which indicates the reality and truth of those absolutes.

E. I think the ultimate question beyond these is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Add that to your list of questions. (I guess this doesn't have to do with anything either but I thought I might throw that in anyway because I love to talk about theology, too.)

-------------
kenaka said...

I'm sorry to say this, but Manny has proven that everything he says is absolutely wrong after giving his point C (that Real Madrid is better than Barcelona). If someone believes that...theology is quickly out of the question, or any other subject that involves logic (I guess you could still go into psicoanalysis...)

---------
Jenn said...

I say ditch all knowledge through logic and go hemitize (shall we make that a word?) yourself in a desert and just let God reveal herself/himself to you.

Having gotten that out, I have a question about this elephant of yours. So you, Ken, Manny, Marta and I are all blind men and women. We are all grasping at this enormous elephant. Some are screaming "logic" some a screaming "faith/trust" but none of us has the whole picture. Will grasping a part of the elephant (as much as you can during your lifetime) be enough, or will you give up, knowing that you can never know it all and that other people know different parts?

This is not a battle any of us can win for you. So, know that I am on the sidelines rooting for you, praying for you and thinking with you.

-------------
Ryan said...

haha, whoah, I think this is the most comments I have ever recieved. Online or in real life....

OK, some of you misunderstood me. The issue isnt relativism. I think that is crap. I belive in absolute truth. No question. What I am questioning is whether it can be known, which it seems we have established that it cannot ever be fully grasped by humans. So again, the questions seem to be (to me):

"if it cannot be fully known, what is the point in trying to know it?"
or
"Does seeing only one skewed, miniscule, out of perspective piece of the truth really woth anything (think seeing only one pixel in a 1280x854 jpg)."
and the final question
"How can anyone who calls themselves an honest seeker of truth still continue to stand by barça in light of madrid's obvious superiority (in the cosmic sense)?"

PS: I'm not just trying to be impossible with this issue. It is simply a huge question that I have that I cant really seem to find an answer.

-------------
Manny Jr said...

ok, I think I understand a little better what you are saying. And I think my response is that we have an innate desire for truth. Though we cannot fully know the entire truth because it is beyond us, we can come to know the source of truth who has revealed what truth we can know for now. (I think Kenny already said this so I am just concurring with him.) I also am agreeing with Jenn, we can't win this for you, but I think we are all praying for you.

------------
Jenn said...

Are all of my comments invalidated becuase I'm ambivilent about both Madrid and Barca? (Be a good friend and don't tell Charles)

---------
marta said...

and if you loathe football?
7:23 AM

-----------
kenaka said...

Marta, you don't loathe football, you just have to have faith in it and find your true inner feelings (I'll teach you next time we're together).
I agree with Manny and answer Ryan's second question:
"Does seeing only one skewed, miniscule, out of perspective piece of the truth really woth anything (think seeing only one pixel in a 1280x854 jpg)."
With a YES, absolutely!

I think it's a lot like what the CTS (Canyelles Training School on how to seduce and manage women) says: "We will never understand women, but the moment we stop trying, we have lost the battle."
I find it kind of the same with the meaning of the universe and of life (except Monty Python, they had it down).

-----------
Erin said...

Haha, wow! I just read through all of that. I think you've really pushed a button with this one, Ryan.

Here are some honest thoughts I have been having lately:

1) At this point in my life, the only thing I know as absolutely true is this: that God exists, that God is good. The implications of all of this are in the works. :o)

2) In my life, I have found, that there will be no point in pursuing absolute truth for its own sake. The pursuit of Truth seems to be more of a Greek idea than a Jewish one. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"...he addressed this Gentile idea of Truth by saying all of it lies within him. This is just as nuts as God saying to Moses, "I am that I am."

I think the only conclusion I can come to from this, is that our God is a God of experience. In experiences (in the bible, but in my own life as well) he makes demands of man; he expects of man to play a role in the world, in time, to further the revelation of his glory, his presence.

3) But, as you may have noticed, experiences are rife with paradox. One person can experience the burning bush and think it means nine different things from the next person. It may be true that calling the burning bush a crocodile is the most untrue thing.

This is the point: a Greek ideal says that absolute truth can be known absolutely. A Jewish ideal of truth says that truth is known in paradox, in polarity: God is in search of man, but Man, is in search of God.

More and more, I see humanity's ability to be near-sighted. I must attempt to see and believe beyond my direct ideological circumstances.

4) I believe the yearning for truth in our hearts has been planted there to get us to ask questions. Questions without answers are inherent in the human condition. Questions create relationship, they create trust, they create faith: believing without seeing.

5) God has made a rock that he WILL not move: it is man's free will. I've probably mentioned it before, but this is what my senior thesis is on. It's been driving me up a wall. But I'm pretty sure (haha), that God created man with free will and WILL not move our will for us. He can move his presence into our lives, speak through our experience of it, through revelations or the lack thereof, but ultimately, only we can make the proverbial leap of faith.

6) The leap of faith is a process. C.S. Lewis said after conversion that he was the "most reluctant convert in all of England". If Lewis died with a bit of doubt in his heart I believe the experiences of his lifetime tell what he believed, more than empirical data, moral diatribes, and logical arguments could. I think, Truth is like trust: you do not believe something until you have acted upon it. I do not trust a bridge until I walk over it.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..."

Having no idea if any of my thoughts have made sense, I will simply end with this: that every year after finishing a journal I read through it again and I wonder at how wrong I was about all the things I was sure I knew.

Yours TRULY, hehe,

erin

---------------
kenaka said...

I have the exact same experience when I read through my journals, let alone blogs a week old. It's amazing how little we know when we are sure we know it all.
The concept of Faith has been pretty well presented by Erin. I think you could say that would be the strange, paradoxical combination of reason and experience. Faith is that step that this God requires, before having defined the burning bush, maybe even before having defined himself. I think a degree of faith is absolutely necessary before you can actually receive a revelation of who He is. Its a catch22 thing almost, there's no other way out: you either wager one way (towards God) or the other (away), I can't seem to see any other real option. True agnosticism as far as Christianity is concerned, can only be a stage, not a foundation to build a life on.