Letters to the Editor
-
Response to required field's question
Alex, I agree it was a silly question about the missing limbs, but in fact this *would* pose a dilemma to plenty of people who don't see these things as "metaphors."
I must admit, I'm not sure why you think it is an especially useful metaphor.
I'm curious as to why, if you see all the supernatural aspects of Christianity as metaphors, and you've studied other religions and think they're pretty much saying the same things, you identify as a Christian? I guess I think of Christians as having to accept the divinity of Jesus in particular, to qualify. Is that misguided? I'm just curious.
I think God reaches to us on the level we can understand, just as we teach children at the appropriate level. Some people need a black-and-white, fundamentalist view which takes things literally. Some people don't. It doesn't mean the first view is wrong, per se, because it's an attempt to understand. To me the point is the honest attempt to understand as best we may. I think God is the ground of being of existence; I think Jesus was divine because he was aware of and hooked into this. Tillich called this the unconditioned ground of being; the Hindu call it Brahman. The entirety of reality is a metaphor for a deeper existence ("the holographic universe," if you will).
If there is a God, then I think he's like any artist and wants to have his work understood. People who try to hide or skew reality for any reason, including religious, work counter to that. People trying to do the right thing and be true to themselves and their experience of the world are closer to God, even if they're atheists.
I practice a religion derived from the teachings of Jesus, and I think Jesus was fully divine and fully human, so I think of myself as a Christian. I think the reason I find that useful is an accident of time and place, and that I could be just as useful in God's view had I been brought up Buddhist or Hindu or Jewish or aboriginal. The goal is for me to become as well aligned with the universe as possible. To be true to myself and reality. In that way, I can hope for something approaching what Jesus and Buddha experienced and promoted.
I think the experience of the Hebrews in the desert post-Egypt, the experience of Buddha, the teachings of Christ, were all lessons to help us, as primates adapted to communicating with God, to become better able to interact with the universe/God. The lesson is, If you do this, you get closer to God; if you're closer to God, you're closer to fulfillment because God sees you more clearly than you see yourself, since God is the ground of existence.
I see no problem with being non-religious if that is the best, most ethical and honest means of existence for a person. The point is to be the best human you can be. Personally, I find Christianity and the concept of God push me to more effort in that direction, and give me more hope. Selfish? Of course. There is no unselfish altruism. To me the fact that doing the right thing, the mystical, the altruistic, and so forth are in individual human interests as well as the other's interest gives me hope. It means we might actually get people to reach for the better angels of their nature, because it's good for them.
-
No exclusive claims?
Very interesting, informative interview.
One quibble: Ms. Pagels states, "There's nothing Jesus himself said that contradicts that [finding God in other religions], as far as I can see."
The validity and accuracy of the canonical Gospel texts is of course subject to criticism and debate. However, did you miss, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but by me."?
The Council of Nicea's exclusive conclusion was determined by the approved canon. The New Testament is full of clear, exclusive claims. That is why Rome ended up persecuting the church, even though Christians at the time were generally law abiding and peaceful. Their exclusiveness threatened the Roman policy of religious tolerance, one of the ways Rome kept peace with its diverse subject peoples.
-
Hook up with LeCastor, our other resident student expert
My field of study is neuroscience; I'm in the middle of graduate school, so I feel competent to point out a couple of things about this issue.
-- Alex O'Neal
Please. Years from now you'll look back on that sentence and be thoroughly embarrassed at your chutzpah. Not to mention your sophomoric attempts at explaining all this.
-
Glad you had a laugh -
May I say that reducing yourself to an ad hominem attack on me shows you don't have a better answer? Are you not embarrassed now, just a while later, that you are reduced to this?
Speak not of what you know not of. You have no idea who I am, and at any given moment in any given life (mine is 41 years old) we are all representing ourselves as best we can. A humble statement that there is no answer is hardly cause for embarrassment. If you don't get it, perhaps it's because you don't have the facts, wit, or training to understand.
-
An argument I've heard for that...
One quibble: Ms. Pagels states, "There's nothing Jesus himself said that contradicts that [finding God in other religions], as far as I can see."
The validity and accuracy of the canonical Gospel texts is of course subject to criticism and debate. However, did you miss, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but by me."?
An argument I've heard regarding that (and it surely involved some translation from greek since my childhood pastor was very fond of them) was that its like the transitive property of equality.
If A=B and B=C then A=C.
If the way = the truth and the truth=the light then the light=the way...
Sooo...
If you're following the truth or the light you are also following the way. Follow any of those things and you're "following" Jesus (know it or not, like it or not -- its a notion that has offended more than one Jewish friend. "Gee, thanks for the pass).
I'm sure there is some long German name of some dusty theologian who wrote a book on it in three ancient languages -- its the sort of thing dusty theologians have enjoyed batting back and forth for millennia.
I've always seen that interpretation as consistent with "what you do to the least of them you do to me" (no specifying that the least be believers, doesn't even say "I was innocent and in prison...")and his high opinion of the Good Samaritan who was doing God's work (shocking to the listeners who regarded a Samaritan as an apostate.)