Connection?

[nathan1977]

I am NOT a materialist, meaning I do not believe extended bodies (objects or materials) are all that exists. I believe in a higher dimension of reality, or maybe not even "higher" just an alternative realm - if you will.

My bad for the misquote. (It's a little late.)

 

[blueyedpoet]

it is late and I have to work in 5 and a half hours...still can't sleep...I wish my brain would produce one of those chemicals to help me sleep =)


I remember once reading that some believe Jesus went to study Buddhist teachings in India. That certainly would make things more interesting.

 

[yolland]

Jesus could have simply reiterated the Buddha's teachings (which had existed for several centuries to that point). He did not, and seemed to go to great lengths to focus on a personal relationship with God (which was considered blasphemous by religious leaders).

Mmmm, I don't think Buddha's teachings would've gone over too well in first century Israel, lol...all that heavy-duty epistemology and phenomenology would've been a wee bit outside their frame of reference. Why do you say a personal relationship with God was considered "blasphemous"?

 

[Ormus]

Unless it's actually the reverse, which is what Scriptures seem to indicate. All the universe crackles with spiritual energy that came from a Creator. Jesus could have simply reiterated the Buddha's teachings (which had existed for several centuries to that point). He did not, and seemed to go to great lengths to focus on a personal relationship with God (which was considered blasphemous by religious leaders).

Except no religion ever merely reiterated teachings. They always followed a syncretic model, where theology and teachings from another religion were fused in and molded to fit with the existing religion.

 

[Ormus]

I remember once reading that some believe Jesus went to study Buddhist teachings in India. That certainly would make things more interesting.

I don't believe it would have been necessary. By the time of Jesus, trade routes between Israel and India would have been long established, and both ideas and goods were often exchanged on that route.

But even then, it's more realistic that if Jesus borrowed any ideas from someone, it was from the Essenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

The accounts by Josephus and Philo show that the Essenes (Philo: Essaioi) led a strictly celibate but communal life − often compared by scholars to Buddhist and later Christian monastic living − although Josephus speaks also of another "rank of Essenes" that did get married (War 2.160-161). According to Josephus, they had customs and observances such as collective ownership (War 2.122; Ant. 18.20), elected a leader to attend to the interests of them all whose orders they obeyed (War 2.123, 134), were forbidden from swearing oaths (War 2.135) and sacrificing animals (Philo, §75), controlled their temper and served as channels of peace (War 2.135), carried weapons only as protection against robbers (War 2.125), had no slaves but served each other (Ant. 18.21) and, as a result of communal ownership, did not engage in trading (War 2.127). Both Josephus and Philo have lengthy accounts of their communal meetings, meals and religious celebrations. From what has been deduced, the food of the Essenes was not allowed to be altered (by being cooked, for instance); and they may have been strict vegetarians, eating mostly bread, wild roots and fruits.[citation needed] After a total of three years probation (War 2.137-138), newly joining members would take an oath that included the commitment to practise piety towards the Deity and righteousness towards humanity, to maintain a pure life-style, to abstain from criminal and immoral activities, to transmit their rules uncorrupted and to preserve the books of the Essenes and the names of the Angels (War 2.139-142). Their theology included belief in the immortality of the soul and that they would receive their souls back after death (War 2.153-158, Ant. 18.18). Part of their activities included purification by water rituals, which was supported by rainwater catchment and storage.

...

The Essenes are discussed in detail by Josephus and Philo. Many scholars believe that the community at Qumran that allegedly produced the Dead Sea Scrolls was an offshoot of the Essenes; however, this theory has been disputed by Norman Golb and other scholars. Some suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was an Essene, and that Christianity evolved from this sect of Judaism, with which it shared many ideas and symbols.

According to Martin A. Larson, the now misunderstood Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans who lived as monks. As vegetarian celibates in self-reliant communities who shunned marriage and family, they preached a coming war with the Sons of Darkness. As the Sons of Light, this reflected a separate influence from Zoroastrianism via their parent ideology of Pythagoreanism. According to Larson, both the Essenes and Pythagoreans resembled thiasoi, or cult units of the Orphic mysteries. John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene who had left the communal life (see Ant. 18.116-119), and it is thought they aspired to emulate their own founding Teacher of Righteousness who was crucified.

Another issue is the relationship between the Essaioi and Philo's Therapeutae and Therapeutrides (see De Vita Contemplativa). It may be argued that he regarded the Therapeutae as a contemplative branch of the Essaioi who, he said, pursued an active life (Vita Cont. I.1).

One theory behind the formation of the Essenes suggested they were the remnants of the Temple priests whose duties were usurped by Jonathan Maccabaeus(no of priestly lineage), perhaps referring to him as the "man of lies" who replaced the Teacher of Righteousness.

 

[nathan1977]

Why do you say a personal relationship with God was considered "blasphemous"?

The Pharisees got all bent out of shape every time Jesus referred to God as His father -- implying or outright stating a love relationship that trumped their relationship of law.

 

[nathan1977]

Mmmm, I don't think Buddha's teachings would've gone over too well in first century Israel, lol...all that heavy-duty epistemology and phenomenology would've been a wee bit outside their frame of reference.

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with teachings that didn't go over too well with anyone -- from his treatment of women to his apparent disregard for Jewish law to his statements about his relationship with his father to his statements that he would rise again. He got a lot of people angry in his day (his comments about how his followers would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, metaphorical though they might have been, drove about 4,000 people away at one point, and he was run out of town when he preached his homecoming message).

 

[nathan1977]

I don't believe it would have been necessary. By the time of Jesus, trade routes between Israel and India would have been long established, and both ideas and goods were often exchanged on that route.

But even then, it's more realistic that if Jesus borrowed any ideas from someone, it was from the Essenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

The fact that Israel had become a mosaic of beliefs shows that there was a marketplace of ideas around. The question is whether Jesus borrowed from these ideas, or whether he was the fulfillment of them. Though it's interesting that by the age of 12 he was already enough of an expert on Jewish law that he was able to teach the Pharisees with authority.

Did the Essenes claim the kind of relationship with God that Jesus did?

 

[Ormus]

Did the Essenes claim the kind of relationship with God that Jesus did?

I'd be interested in an explanation of how you'd define such a personal relationship, just so we're on the same page.

 

[verte76]

While there is quite a difference between the various religious tradition, many of them have much in common, such as the Abrahamic faiths. Buddhism doesn't have a God concept. My own sister is a follower of the path of Hinduism, and recently visited India. Religion is a matter of choice. Each one of us chose what we believe for a very good reason, and it's important to respect this. I expect a friend of mine to announce her conversion to Islam any day now. She's very impressed with this religion, hangs around at the mosque, and it's what she wants to do with her life.

 

[verte76]

Re: Re: Re: Connection?

I agree with this 100%.

God is bigger than any one religion.

I agree.

 

[verte76]

Please don't take this the wrong way, I might be putting this a bit bluntly because I am at such a loss of words, but I think this is could very well be the most enlightened thing you've ever posted. I am heartened by such a post by someone I earlier perceived to be yet another right-wing conservative Christian.

I am of the belief that God appears to people the way that would make the most sense to them. Don't you think God would know the best way to reach the hearts of those he created? In the end there is one God, and its not yours or mine, its essential for tolerance and understanding. People might disagree on how to honor God all they can, but doesn't change the fact that they all believe the same thing.

I agree. I worship the same God as the Jews and the Muslims. It is great to see people reaching out this way.

 

[yolland]

The Pharisees got all bent out of shape every time Jesus referred to God as His father -- implying or outright stating a love relationship that trumped their relationship of law.

God as Father would not have been an unfamiliar idea to Jews of the time. I'm not sure precisely which passages you have in mind and would really have to see the context to respond meaningfully (though as I'm up to my ears grading final exams at the moment, I'm not sure I'd have time to). In any case, "blasphemy" in Jewish law means something quite narrow and specific, which was really why I was asking.

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with teachings that didn't go over too well with anyone -- from his treatment of women to his apparent disregard for Jewish law to his statements about his relationship with his father to his statements that he would rise again. He got a lot of people angry in his day (his comments about how his followers would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, metaphorical though they might have been, drove about 4,000 people away at one point, and he was run out of town when he preached his homecoming message).

I think you may be missing my point here--I was not suggesting that Buddha's doctrines would've proven controversial or pissed people off, so much as that the worldview they're couched in would simply have been too unfamiliar to make sense to the average first-century Jew without a lot of prior conceptual groundwork-laying. Karma, dharma, moksa, maya, dependent origin, the connection between suffering and attachment, the illusion of the self, the unreliability of sense perception, etc.--most or all of these would've been completely unfamiliar ideas to the average Jew at the time, and you can't properly make sense of Buddha's teachings without them. Taking a controversial stance on, or adopting a new interpretation of, texts, doctrines and laws familiar to your audience is something else entirely.

 

[nathan1977]

I'd be interested in an explanation of how you'd define such a personal relationship, just so we're on the same page.

I'm more interested in how Jesus defined it himself. (His prayer in John 17 is probably the best example of it.)

 

[nathan1977]

the worldview they're couched in would simply have been too unfamiliar to make sense to the average first-century Jew without a lot of prior conceptual groundwork-laying.

I certainly agree with you here -- the difference in worldview extends down to the present day. I'd take it a step further and suggest that the reason is because of the fundamental differences that underlie the concepts. Which takes me back to the initial subject of the post -- namely, that there are fundamental differences that underlie various religions, differences that would keep one from saying "it's all the same thing."

 

[Irvine511]

while i can understand the need to differentiate between religions, doesn't this do more harm than good and cause people to act in ways precisely opposite to the teachings of whatever religion?

also, doesn't this, again, underscore the similarities of all religions? they all insist on fundamental differences (since all religions have their fundies) and insist that these differences are justification for believing that one group is wrong (the damned) and their own group is right (the saved).

it's all such a product of human thought. and human insecurities.

 

[yolland]

From a theological standpoint, differentiation is necessary; you can't very well study any one particular religion without making conceptual distinctions between its worldview and that of others, any more than you could study a particular culture anthropologically without doing the same. As far as what that has to do with who gets "damned" and who gets "saved," that sort of thinking is not by any means part of "all" religions.

 

[Irvine511]

From a theological standpoint, differentiation is necessary; you can't very well study any one particular religion without making conceptual distinctions between its worldview and that of others, any more than you could study a particular culture anthropologically without doing the same. As far as what that has to do with who gets "damned" and who gets "saved," that sort of thinking is not by any means part of "all" religions.

i can understand the need for differentiation from an intellectual standpoint -- for how do we understand except through comparison.

the point i'm making is that the insistence upon differentiation, the need to highlight differences instead of similarities, and the use of said highlights to maintain boundaries and borders and thereby exclusivity (the "damned" vs "saved" is of course not shared by all religions, i threw it into a western/Christian context) is yet another way in which "all religions" are built from the same all-too-human blueprint.

 

[nathan1977]

I think one can highlight similarities between religions without resorting to minimalist reductionism, which may strike some as offensive. (I also think that really digging in to an avowed belief and exploring its underpinnings is a good thing. It's part of why I hang out in places like FYM so much.)

 

[Irvine511]

I think one can highlight similarities between religions without resorting to minimalist reductionism, which may strike some as offensive. (I also think that really digging in to an avowed belief and exploring its underpinnings is a good thing. It's part of why I hang out in places like FYM so much.)

yes, of course.

i'm just pointing out claims of exclusivity as a general shared characteristic of the major religions, so much so that it might be a defining characteristic of any religious system of thought.

or is it offensive to think of religion as a system?

 

[nathan1977]

yes, of course.

i'm just pointing out claims of exclusivity as a general shared characteristic of the major religions, so much so that it might be a defining characteristic of any religious system of thought.

or is it offensive to think of religion as a system?

I think it depends on how people use it. I think many people are looking for a system. The problem with a religious system is that people can move so far down the track that they forget where they started from (over-politicized Christianity, for example). This is why I'm not a big fan of organized religion. Most people want to be told what to believe when it comes to faith -- perhaps because the check-out factor is easier. (The unexplored life or faith may not be worth living, but it's sure a lot more difficult.) Systems or rituals keep us from having to reflect too deeply on the underlying philosophy/worldview. People gloss over items of importance with a casual "it's all the same thing," never realizing that perhaps they aren't...and the ramifications for what they believe. (For example, how would modern conservative Christianity change if its adherents started to see themselves as ministers not of morality first but of grace?)

 

[Irvine511]

I think it depends on how people use it. I think many people are looking for a system. The problem with a religious system is that people can move so far down the track that they forget where they started from (over-politicized Christianity, for example). This is why I'm not a big fan of organized religion. Most people want to be told what to believe when it comes to faith -- perhaps because the check-out factor is easier. (The unexplored life or faith may not be worth living, but it's sure a lot more difficult.) Systems or rituals keep us from having to reflect too deeply on the underlying philosophy/worldview. People gloss over items of importance with a casual "it's all the same thing," never realizing that perhaps they aren't...and the ramifications for what they believe. (For example, how would modern conservative Christianity change if its adherents started to see themselves as ministers not of morality first but of grace?)

but i'm not talking about the organization of religion, or religion as an organization, i'm talking about religion as having a blueprint fundamentally rooted in the human ability to process and analyze knowledge. that it is a "Thought System" and abides by its own human-created rules and, like all institutions, is primarily concerned with it's continued existence.

 

[yolland]

Well, religion is a human institution, and human life and thought do inevitably entail borders and boundaries, so I'm not sure how it could really be otherwise. Culture and philosophy are also "exclusivist" institutions, using the definition you seem to be employing; does that likewise make them "too" human (whatever that means)? In my opinion, you're expecting religion to be something it isn't and can't be if you're faulting it for failing to yield a universally agreed-upon, irreducible set of "ultimate" truths about the life, the universe and everything. Religious or not, there will always be the reality of divergent perceptions, whether dangerous or benign, to contend with; syncretism can certainly be one way of doing that, though it hardly guarantees peaceful results--that depends on which ideas you're trying to reconcile and how you go about doing that.

But perhaps I'm not fully understanding you, because I don't understand why the unsurprising fact that different religions entail different worldviews is something to get upset about in and of itself. There's only one world in an empirical sense, but there is never going to be one common human way to experience living in it, in religion as in other areas.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, religion is a human institution, and human life and thought do inevitably entail borders and boundaries, so I'm not sure how it could really be otherwise. Culture and philosophy are also "exclusivist" institutions, using the definition you seem to be employing; does that likewise make them "too" human (whatever that means)? In my opinion, you're expecting religion to be something it isn't and can't be if you're faulting it for failing to yield a universally agreed-upon, irreducible set of "ultimate" truths about the life, the universe and everything. Religious or not, there will always be the reality of divergent perceptions, whether dangerous or benign, to contend with; syncretism can certainly be one way of doing that, though it hardly guarantees peaceful results--that depends on which ideas you're trying to reconcile and how you go about doing that.

But perhaps I'm not fully understanding you, because I don't understand why the unsurprising fact that different religions entail different worldviews is something to get upset about in and of itself. There's only one world in an empirical sense, but there is never going to be one common human way to experience living in it, in religion as in other areas.

when a religion holds itself up as the one, true way, it becomes something more than human, that there is something essential and eternal about it, that it was handed to man by the divine.

my problem is when people think their religion is exempt from the same rules that we use to understand (as you mention) culture and philosophy. i understand religion as actually an interesting intersection of culture and philosophy, a means of understanding the human condition (as it were), but i then must reject claims of exclusivity of that religion as anything other than a claim that is likewise governed by the same rules we use to understand culture and philosophy.

when we talk about a personal relationship with God the Father, and notions of Grace, and how there is no way to get to the Father but through Christ, we are exempting ourselves from the very human-ness of religion; we are not, as you say in the first paragraph, understanding religion as a human institution. we are making claims to it's eternal everlasting nature that transcends not just culture and language but human-ness itself.

this is what i'm trying to get at. i think religion is what it is; it's other claims about religion that, i think, are making religion into something it isn't, which is something more than a human system of understanding, that bears the same blueprint of any other human "system" of expression or thought.

 

[nathan1977]

when a religion holds itself up as the one, true way, it becomes something more than human, that there is something essential and eternal about it, that it was handed to man by the divine.

my problem is when people think their religion is exempt from the same rules that we use to understand (as you mention) culture and philosophy. i understand religion as actually an interesting intersection of culture and philosophy, a means of understanding the human condition (as it were), but i then must reject claims of exclusivity of that religion as anything other than a claim that is likewise governed by the same rules we use to understand culture and philosophy.

when we talk about a personal relationship with God the Father, and notions of Grace, and how there is no way to get to the Father but through Christ, we are exempting ourselves from the very human-ness of religion; we are not, as you say in the first paragraph, understanding religion as a human institution. we are making claims to it's eternal everlasting nature that transcends not just culture and language but human-ness itself.

this is what i'm trying to get at. i think religion is what it is; it's other claims about religion that, i think, are making religion into something it isn't, which is something more than a human system of understanding, that bears the same blueprint of any other human "system" of expression or thought.

Because religion deals with the fundamental human questions about the nature of reality -- who we are, why we're here, where we're going, what it all means -- you probably can't avoid empirical statements. It probably would have been much more convenient for Jesus not to make empirical statements about who he was, but he did. Mohammed was no less empirical in his own formation of Islam; God's command to the Israelites that "You shall have no other gods before me" was also pretty empirical, as is Buddhism's negation of gods and focus on enlightenment. Each one of these statements has ramifications for all other world systems, because they deal in a perceived reality.

Religions deal in the fundamentals of our world -- and does not merely content itself with what is visible (which to me makes it fundamentally different than sociology or philosophy), but focuses on the invisible as well. If we start with the presupposition that there is a spiritual reality, and that we are (though human) at least somewhat composed of spirit, then religion is the study of how these two realms intersect -- where our fundamentals meet the world's.

You raise the question of validating the truth-claims of various religions. I personally think contemporary practices should be evaluated in relationship to the earliest followers. (For example, I see an awful lot of love, generosity, and grace in the early Christian church, and not an awful lot of anger and condemnation.) But experience is helpful too. It's hard to validate one's teachings until you follow them. Jesus said, "A man must follow me. Then he will know whether my wisdom comes from me or my Father." A friend of mine who came to faith in Jesus put it very poetically; he believes in the God of the Bible because "I see my life in its pages." It comes back to experience: I experience something I can't explain, and my life becomes a quest to understand what that was.

Ultimately, what I hear you saying is that we need to remember our humanity in the midst of our spiritual quests, and I think that's right on.

Sorry for the epistle.

 

[martha]

5 stars for civility, education, and dialogue.

 

[Ormus]

Just a bit of trivia, but both "God" (in many languages) and "Devil" originate from the same Proto-Indo-European root word, *deywos. This is due to a quirk in Indian Hinduism and Iranian Zoroastrianism, where the good Hindu gods (*daivas) and the bad Hindu gods (asuras) are exactly reversed in early Zoroastrianism.

Now where I say "most languages," regarding "God" is because the word "God," in itself, isn't related. However, for Romance languages, the word for "God" derives from the Latin, "Deus," which, in itself, is derived from *deywos.

The specific word, "God," has an even more interesting etymology, as it derives from the Proto-Germanic word, *ǥuđánaz. Where this gets interesting, however, is that this word originated with a mythical tribal ancestor to the Scandinavian Geats ("Gautar"), Goths ("Gutans"), and Godlanders ("Gutar"), and refers to the Norse god, Oðin ("Gautr" in Old Norse; "Godan" in Lombardic, and, yes, "God" in Old English).

For some reason, I find these kinds of quirks of history to be quite interesting.

 

[Irvine511]

Because religion deals with the fundamental human questions about the nature of reality -- who we are, why we're here, where we're going, what it all means -- you probably can't avoid empirical statements. It probably would have been much more convenient for Jesus not to make empirical statements about who he was, but he did. Mohammed was no less empirical in his own formation of Islam; God's command to the Israelites that "You shall have no other gods before me" was also pretty empirical, as is Buddhism's negation of gods and focus on enlightenment. Each one of these statements has ramifications for all other world systems, because they deal in a perceived reality.

the enitre post was very eloquent, and there's not too much to disagree with, but i do want to comment on this point as i round out the circle of my anti-fundamentalist stance. the various dictates you've outlined above are mediated through humanity -- we don't know what God said to the Israelites; we just think we know what they claim he said to them. we don't know what Jesus said; we only have some accounts of what people said that he said. none of this would be admissable in a court of law. thus, we cannot use these statements as facts in the way that we can say that water freezes at 32 degreese Farenheit.

thusly, the stance that "there is only one way to the Father and that is through me" (paraphrased) is a very poor basis to explain the belief that, properly extrapolated, 800m Hindus are going to be mighty upset when they die -- what will happen? will Jesus stand there and wag a finger and say, "you chose ... poorly." (points to whomever gets the movie reference).

anyway, there was also this:

[q]A friend of mine who came to faith in Jesus put it very poetically; he believes in the God of the Bible because "I see my life in its pages." It comes back to experience: I experience something I can't explain, and my life becomes a quest to understand what that was.[/q]

i've seen myself in the pages of "Hamlet;" in the music of "Achtung Baby." but i don't take such things as literal truth, but as a means to help me understand what is my own truth, to shine a light onto my own experience and to name what once you couldn't name or describe what once couldn't be described.

and that might be a beautiful way to look at life, as you've noted above: a quest to understand what can't yet be known, to see what can't yet be seen.

and i don't see how any one religion, necessarily, helps us do this better than others.

i strongly believe that if you had been born in India, you might well be as strong in your Hinduism as you are in your Christianity. my best friend's father, who's a very devout Hindu, might well be a strong Christian had he been born in the US or Europe.

i think what draws us all to religion, however, is fairly fundamental to human nature (though A_W might disagree), but it is our cultural cirucmstance that ultimately decides how we respond (and are practically able to respond) to this fairly innate attraction to the devine.

 

[verte76]

Wow, awesome post, ormus! It's very informative. I had no idea that "God" and "Goth" were cognate.

 

[blueyedpoet]

In order to understand Jesus you must understand the culture he was living in. As discussed, trade routes, pilgrimages, etc. led to themes, philosophies, ideas, and religions to become more readily available to a variety of audiences. That the Roman empire had roads greatly influenced philosophy and religion.
If you don't understand that Jesus was a Jew, you will never understand him. As a Jew he was an individual within an oppressed group of people. There were several factions within that group that held different beliefs about how they ought to deal with the Roman oppression. The Pharisees believed that God was punishing them because of their wickedness, thus, by purifying themselves and obeying all the rules God would save them; the sauducees believed that "God" was not coming to save them, so they should just try to figure out a way to live within the Roman world by participating in Romanness and leaving Jewish-ness behind; the zealots believed in physically fighting the Roman empire; and, the essences believed (similar to the pharisees) that society was corrupt and the only way to be free of oppression was to leave society behind and engage in spiritual warfare (not physical).

Jesus was anti-violence, anti-making-a-million-and-one-rules-just-to-feel-better-and-more-religious-than-others, anti-roman establishment, and anti-leaving society behind. No wonder so many hated him; his vision was truly remarkable.