Truth is Relative to Religous Tradition part 2

Last time I discussed the relative nature of truth in relation to religious traditions. This produced a torrent of comment form Dave. He singled out three quotes by Professor McFarland that show the problem:

"[McFarland] argues that religious traditions are relative to the truth. No one tradition is the truth because they are all cultural filters for experiences that are had a subliminal level. Some mediate better than others."

"The historical nature of Jesus gives him a concrete identity as a real man and and stands opposed to mythological place holder. The issue is not the tradition, which is just a cultural filter and serves as a guide, not an absolute orbiter of truth, vs. an actual relationship with Jesus which is a mystical reality and transcends any particular religion."

"If Jesus is God then he's there to be known by everyone in every faith and every culture... If one follows the true creator one is following Jesus even if he thinks he's Gautama Siddhartha."

Then he Clarifies he problem:

If the "logos" is the incarnational aspect of the ground of being, then it can be argued that all of existence is a manifestation of the logos. This is something professional theologians have said whether or not one agrees.

If the convectional Evangelical take on the Bible is correct we can see the world as a manifestation of the logos as well. The logos is the rationale of God, the Logos took part in the creation of the world: thus the world is a manifestation of the Logos at lest in the sense of being a manifestation of Logos's power and design. There is no need to see the world as a manfiestaion of the Logos in the sense of deifying the world.

That raises the perennial question of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christ. The early followers of Jesus argued over this. Is Christ, or the Messiah, a special embodiment of the logos? Are Christ and logos interchangeable? This is valid debate.

Only because one rejects Christian doctrine. The issue was resolved with in the tradition. There's good reason for digging it up but that one wishes to deify someone else.

Also, was Christ-nature awakened in Jesus? Is Christ-nature in all? Can everyone awaken to it? Can we all be "one" in non-dual God-consciousness like Jesus? Can we also be Christ? Again, valid debate and theological speculation.

That assumes Jesus is not the unique incarnation. In speaking of Jesus as the foal of God* (John 3:16 = "only begotten") the New Testament is stating that Jesus has a relation to God shared by no one else. (see PDF by the great Raymond Brown arguing that NT does reference Jesus as "God.")

This raises the question of whether Hellenistic/Jewish cultural and linguistic constructions for the manifesting aspect of the ground of being , i.e. the logos and Christ, are somehow essentially superior to other cultural constructions referring to the different aspects of the ground of being. See this post on my blog for one of many ways Buddhism (since you chose that as a foil) can express a similar idea. It tends to avoid the more formal philosophical Buddhist terms about the nature of reality and the manifestations of existence (such as emptiness, dharmakaya, nirmanakaya, etc.)

Of course that would violate the known canons of linguistic study. We can't say one lanauge is superior to others that would steak out a special "Holy Spirit Greek." It was thought at one time that this is what Koine Greek was, but it then it was proved through archaeological discovery that it was just the language of the common folk. I don't see why this must be raised. The languages used in Biblical reference are the lanagues used. There's nothing we can do about that. There's over arching "true language" that would serve as a guide line. You have to take what we are given try to understand it as best we can given the context, and find equivalents for translation. Let's mot forget most of us reading this blog read the Bible in English, and there guarantee that the English is any better a translation than any other.

If we follow McFarland as you presented his views, then we would say, "No, each construction is relative, and no one construction can be considered the truth, just a different reflection of the underlying truth common to all constructions." Here constructions refers to the cultural and linguistic notions of religion regarding the ground of being.

Yes, that is what he said. He actually did say that to me in private.

This in turn means that if we speak of Christ, we are speaking of a way of understanding this manifesting aspect of the ground of being through a particular cultural lens that isn't automatically privileged over other ways of speaking about it. It means that one could reverse it, and say that to talk about Christ or Christ-nature is to talk about Buddha or Buddha-nature. The Buddha also was a historical manifestation. We can say that the Buddha is Mind, that in fact we are all Mind, and that if we are talking about Mind, the Unborn Self, then Jesus the Christ is also a manifestation of Mind, Jesus is the Buddha.

That's theoretically true but there's a counter problem. While there may not be the kind of understanding in Eastern languages to think of Christ as uninquley divine that still doesn't mean that specially Hebrew concepts necesasry have a 1x1 correspondence with Buddhist or other concepts. Incoranton is not necessarily re-incarnation. Mind of Christ is not necessary Buddha mind. We can't translate Jesus into Buddha. We can't assume Logos is Buddha mind. Although I would inclined to consider that since Justin Martyr considered the Logos of Christ as the Logos of the Greeks. Rather than trying for one-to-one correspondences I think makes more sense to try for equivalency and allow the traditions to speak for themselves. I'm not trying to replace Buddha with Jesus in the minds of Buddhists.

That is, Jesus/Christ could be discussed in Buddhist terms just as Buddha can be discussed in Christian terms. This would involve bringing out many terms and concepts for comparison. That is neither my intention nor my desire here.

That's true and it's only fair. Yet it doesn't have to be a literal one-to-one relationship. when you expect that kind of detail some traditon has to lose out. the constructs do differ. The result is not a clear sharp division bewteen the construct and the mystical reality behind it. This is another problem that Daves seems to forget to make of the mystical. We don't need make those kinds of judgements we can just let the camp speak for itself. The idea is to be positive about the other guys and not see them as threats not to take then over or give up our own thing. It doesn't have to be a contest or a rivalry. The truth stands behind the traditions it can be experienced but it can't be explained clearly. We use metaphors to bridge the gaps not produce idols. Therefore, stay in your tradition. Be nice to the other traditions and remember we are colleagues not competitors. I do have my own beliefs and there is a point where I have to say "gee these guys are wrong about that." What it is.

God transcends all our neatly derived categories. The most brilliant theology can never do justice to the reality that stands behind the many symbols. We can't get literal with it because the more literal we get the more we emphasis the language and that means we turn to the contrasts of culture and away form the transcendent reality that can't be pinned down by the language. The only help for it is to seek God. It doesn't work to seek the experience, this is what mystics all over the world tell us. Seek the giver not the gifts. Just seek God and we have to seek God through the tradition that speaks to us.



* this is not a note on Brown's PDF. He uses different arguments. In referring to the "foal" of God (which is not from Brown) I had reference to the term "only begotten son of God" which is used of Jesus.(Jn 3:16). The Greek 'mongenes" means "unqiuely born of" and is translated into the French Catholic traiditon in ways that would be best rendered in English as "unique." The implication is one of a kind it comes from a word that rerefs speciclaly to the foal of a horse. There are those who squabble about weather the word implies literal birth or adoption but it it clearly implies literal birth, weather it could be used of adoption as well I don't know.

What do you mean by mean?

 


Atheists on CARM were making a big production of the idea that there is real meaning to the phrase "God makes life meaningful." Their contention is that their lives are meaningful for them, becuase they want to think they are, and no other form of meaning that makes any difference. I think this is one of their more myopic conceits. They proceeded to play a little game, whenever a theist tired to describe what was meant they would say "O but there's no God so it doesn't mean anything." All roads to Rome, and Rome is the Colosseum! where the Christians face the lions. Of course what they really mean is (if we can use that term "mean") is that "there is no other meaning that I choose to regard but the one I care to give things. This is obviously a very selfish attitude becuase that could just as logically be said by UFO chaser who smells like Bigfoot and talks to people who aren't there and then insists "I'm not bothering anyone, and anyone who is bothered doesn't deserve not to be."

When we say "meaning" God gives us meaning we have reference to an ordered relation between the idea and the particulars. Not to say it's necessary Platonist although it is Platonic in the sense that it relates the messy business of daily life to an ideal. God is Truth, Being and love. These three things correlate. they are based upon the nature of being as an eternal necessary reality of depth in which the beings are produced and in turn partake. Here I make the distinction made famous by Theologian
John Macquarrie's Principles of Christian Theology.   God is being itself, or the ground of being, the individual temporally bound contingencies created by God are "the beings." Thus, we have "Being" and "the beings." The latter are products of the former, or we could say they share in the nature of the former. Here I am making the assumption that being holds within it a meaning, based upon being as the source and origin of consciousness, thus the center of valuation and understanding, and the beings are the recipients of that understanding. It is the understanding of that center or origin of consciousness that bestows meaning upon us when we undersatnd the reality of that center and we harmonize with it's aims and interests. In the same manner we are loved by God and when return God's love we are living up tot he purpose for which we were created and thus we fit the valuation of the meaning of creation and we fulfill the purpose for which we were created.


Meaning is an ordered relation based upon creative purpose and wisdom and orients the contingent aspects of being to the eternal necessary aspect. It does this enabling us to ground identity and purpose: as SK said "when I find God I am more myself." Paul says In him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17). We could say that living up the purpose of creation is an outgrown or a product of Salvation. The soteriolgoical process begins in life on earth, and culminates in eternal life after death. It is a restoration process; the term "salvation" is related to redemption, buying back, also to healing, restoring. Part of healing and restoration is to harmonize with the purpose for which our lives were intended.

Meaning is related to the transcendental signifier (or TS) and they way it orders relations as the top of the metaphsyical hierarchy. For reference I urge the reader to read my transcendental signifier arguemnt for the existence of God.  As well as the commentary on the page that goes with it. I might also point out there's a page on the Derridian background to the argument that one might find useful. In a nutshell the TS is the top of the metaphysical hierarchy, the apex of the organization scheme, the organizing principle which making meaning of all the marks (words) we use to bestow meaning upon things and ideas. In determining the organization of a system the TS is a principle which determines meaning. Derrida tells us that God is the supreme form of the TS.

"Without God, who has been the ultimate Transcendent Signified, there is no central perspective, no objective truth of things, no real thing beyond language." [Nacy Murphy and James McClendon jr." Distinguishing Modern and Postmodern Theologies." Modern Theology, 5:3 April 1989, 211]

Here it is said "signified" becuase signified is the thing to which the word refers. The word "G-o-d" is the "signifier" the thing with which we signify, and the thing we signify is the signified. The word "God" is the signifier, and thing to which it refers is the reality we call "God." Here Derrida, an atheist who was actually to prove there was no TS, admits that there is no central perspective or meaning without God. That's ok for him becuase his whole point was there is no  meaning. I have refereed to God as the "top of the metaphysical hierarchy." That is just what the TS is because it's the  principle that organizes. That's God's major job description as well.


For Heidegger metaphysics is grouping sense data into ordered categories. that's' not a good thing for him becuase it means we lose truth in preconceived notions. The altnaritve according to Heidegger is almost logos sort of move, where we allow the sense data to suggest it's own categories so we let the organization work by itself. SK goes one step further than that and says it's not just the sense data that suggests the categories but the logos, the ordering principle the mind of God.

What the heck am I talking about here with this "logos sort of move?" The theologians of the middle ages regarded the logos as the ordering principle, this is based upon Christ's work in creation "without him was not anything made." That's form John's Logos prologue. They saw the logos as the ordering principle that put things into perspective and fashioned and ordered the way the system works. In modern parlance we could say the logos is the TS or that the Logos is the embodiment of the principle of evolution. Of course the materialists would balk at such a concept. If there is a God who created a universe that evolves then evolution is one of the primary organizing features of reality and thus it has to be a reflection of God's mind at some point. That's what the Logos is, the creative rationale of God. Thus I say Heidegger's alternative to metaphysics (grouping under a single rue brick of sense data which contrasts understanding and meaning)  is a "Logos move" it allows the sense data to suggest their own categories, which was Heidegger's answer, yet I'm adding a theistic aspect that he did not see, which is the choices suggested by the sense data would be a reflection of the Logos's ordering of reality.

So Meaning an ordered relation form the top of the metaphysical hierarchy that enables us to ground our identity and our purpose in an understanding of who we are and what our lives are about and to orient that toward the infinite joys of heaven and knowledge of the divine.