Some general thoughts concerning religion
Religious Diversity
I have become somewhat interested in religious diversity through the writings of my friend, Kevin Kim. Kevin discusses that there seem to be two main views of religious pluralism or diversity, convergent and divergent. The convergent view says that all religions are ultimately expressing the same thing in different terms (Gross oversimplification but that is the essence) and the divergent view says that they are discussing different things. I tend to agree with the divergent view for the following reason(s).
The universe and our totality of experience is much richer than we can contemplate in its entirety. It is much like the blind men and the elephant, and each of us or each group of us focuses on a limited set of attributes. However, in the case of religion we have no way of knowing that the various belief systems are related at some core, a la the elephant. It is more likely that each religious tradition carves out its set of interests and creates boundaries that prevent its finding some core. As long as the participants believe it has answered the questions they wish answered, there is no motivation to look beyond those boundaries. As a consequence, I do not think it possible to find some common belief system among the various religious traditions. This is not to say they are in conflict. It is quite possible for them to coexist both socially and within the same individual. This is an area of further study for me, and I expect there will be modification of my views over time.
Bibilical Interpretation
There is a version of biblical interpretation that seems to want to approach the Bible as if every word is exactly, factually true, as written, in the 21st Century. This is the basis of Fundamentalism, and it is a dependency for Evangelical Atheism to have any say. It apparently motivates the author of a book our daughter loaned me called "The Year of Living Biblically." Even at my early stages of study, it is a ridiculous position to take. First of all, what version of the Bible is definitive, King James, New International, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard, The English Bible, The North American Standard, etc. I have worked with nine different translations, and found that for theologically difficult areas, there are nine different renderings of what is supposedly the same Greek text.
Not only that, if one looks a the field of textual criticism, one finds that it is impossible to determine the original text. We are looking at many generations of copies, and the oldest versions found are second to third century, over one hundred years after the originals were written. Textual critics have found hundreds of thousands of errors or changes in various copies. Some are as simple as misspellings, but some are rewritings to fit a particular theological stance. Then one can question which textual version did a particular translation use as its base. Interestingly enough, the King James version, which is often the basis for the biblical inerrantists, is currently considered to have a very unreliable version of the Greek as its basis, compared to what has been found over the last fifty to one hundred years.
If one is going to do interpretation of scripture in modern times, there is a complex process that has to be undertaken. First one has to determine what is historical vs. theological in the writing. Second, one must determine what the writings meant for the author and his/her audience. Then one must determine if that meaning can still hold today, especially in the light of modern scientific findings. Finally one can apply the scriptures to today's world.
There are very egregious violations of this program today, the most notable being the "Left Behind" series of books. Based on a direct application of the words of "The Book of Revelation" to modern society, it is a completed reinterpretation of that book which described the evils of the Roman Empire. 666, the "mark of the beast" is the sum of the numeric analogs of the letters of the alphabet used to write the name of Emperor Nero. This is not the first time, but is one of the more notable times this has been done. Another version of this was "The Late, Great Planet Earth."
I believe one of the problems that Christianity has today, is that it has not been brought up to date, but rather has been diluted with a false inclusiveness vs. a theological restructuring.
The Stifling of Religious Expression in the US
From the time I was in high school fifty years ago, to now, there has been a constant effort by some athests to suppress the expression of religion in the public forum. Lawsuits over prayer in school, creche scenes in public parks, the existence of crosses in public places all have been part of this effort. Where the Constitution says that Congress cannot make any law to force people to attend a certain church, or consider any church an "official" church, they have taken it to mean that there cannot be any expression, voluntary or otherwise, in public forums of religious belief. There have even been instances where, contrary to the second phrase of that amendment, that there can be no law burdening religion, religious groups were banned from having any meetings on public property though there was no connection of the religion to the property, yet all other organizations could use it.
On the other side, Fundamentalists have attempted to create in law some of their beliefs, such as the teaching of Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum in high schools, or laws restricting what can be offered on motel television movie systems, or laws restricting life partnerships recognized by the state to only a man and a woman. [I have written on this before, and I have no problem with the state recognizing civil unions. The biggest part of the controversy is the attempt to redefine marriage, which has met with greater restrictions than would otherwise occur.] The most contentious effort is the one to completely ban abortion. Which is a simplistic approach to a very complex issue. Note that unlimited abortion is an equally simplistic approach to that issue, though that is the current law.
Between the Evangelical Atheists and the Fundamentalist Christians, all the air has been sucked out of the room with respect to religious discussion in public. I will do what I can to counter this. In effect, I will eventually produce a lot of words that will boil down to, "A pox on both your houses." The intolerance of both groups for any beliefs but theirs runs counter to all the aspirations for Freedom of Religion that this country was founded on.
I have become somewhat interested in religious diversity through the writings of my friend, Kevin Kim. Kevin discusses that there seem to be two main views of religious pluralism or diversity, convergent and divergent. The convergent view says that all religions are ultimately expressing the same thing in different terms (Gross oversimplification but that is the essence) and the divergent view says that they are discussing different things. I tend to agree with the divergent view for the following reason(s).
The universe and our totality of experience is much richer than we can contemplate in its entirety. It is much like the blind men and the elephant, and each of us or each group of us focuses on a limited set of attributes. However, in the case of religion we have no way of knowing that the various belief systems are related at some core, a la the elephant. It is more likely that each religious tradition carves out its set of interests and creates boundaries that prevent its finding some core. As long as the participants believe it has answered the questions they wish answered, there is no motivation to look beyond those boundaries. As a consequence, I do not think it possible to find some common belief system among the various religious traditions. This is not to say they are in conflict. It is quite possible for them to coexist both socially and within the same individual. This is an area of further study for me, and I expect there will be modification of my views over time.
Bibilical Interpretation
There is a version of biblical interpretation that seems to want to approach the Bible as if every word is exactly, factually true, as written, in the 21st Century. This is the basis of Fundamentalism, and it is a dependency for Evangelical Atheism to have any say. It apparently motivates the author of a book our daughter loaned me called "The Year of Living Biblically." Even at my early stages of study, it is a ridiculous position to take. First of all, what version of the Bible is definitive, King James, New International, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard, The English Bible, The North American Standard, etc. I have worked with nine different translations, and found that for theologically difficult areas, there are nine different renderings of what is supposedly the same Greek text.
Not only that, if one looks a the field of textual criticism, one finds that it is impossible to determine the original text. We are looking at many generations of copies, and the oldest versions found are second to third century, over one hundred years after the originals were written. Textual critics have found hundreds of thousands of errors or changes in various copies. Some are as simple as misspellings, but some are rewritings to fit a particular theological stance. Then one can question which textual version did a particular translation use as its base. Interestingly enough, the King James version, which is often the basis for the biblical inerrantists, is currently considered to have a very unreliable version of the Greek as its basis, compared to what has been found over the last fifty to one hundred years.
If one is going to do interpretation of scripture in modern times, there is a complex process that has to be undertaken. First one has to determine what is historical vs. theological in the writing. Second, one must determine what the writings meant for the author and his/her audience. Then one must determine if that meaning can still hold today, especially in the light of modern scientific findings. Finally one can apply the scriptures to today's world.
There are very egregious violations of this program today, the most notable being the "Left Behind" series of books. Based on a direct application of the words of "The Book of Revelation" to modern society, it is a completed reinterpretation of that book which described the evils of the Roman Empire. 666, the "mark of the beast" is the sum of the numeric analogs of the letters of the alphabet used to write the name of Emperor Nero. This is not the first time, but is one of the more notable times this has been done. Another version of this was "The Late, Great Planet Earth."
I believe one of the problems that Christianity has today, is that it has not been brought up to date, but rather has been diluted with a false inclusiveness vs. a theological restructuring.
The Stifling of Religious Expression in the US
From the time I was in high school fifty years ago, to now, there has been a constant effort by some athests to suppress the expression of religion in the public forum. Lawsuits over prayer in school, creche scenes in public parks, the existence of crosses in public places all have been part of this effort. Where the Constitution says that Congress cannot make any law to force people to attend a certain church, or consider any church an "official" church, they have taken it to mean that there cannot be any expression, voluntary or otherwise, in public forums of religious belief. There have even been instances where, contrary to the second phrase of that amendment, that there can be no law burdening religion, religious groups were banned from having any meetings on public property though there was no connection of the religion to the property, yet all other organizations could use it.
On the other side, Fundamentalists have attempted to create in law some of their beliefs, such as the teaching of Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum in high schools, or laws restricting what can be offered on motel television movie systems, or laws restricting life partnerships recognized by the state to only a man and a woman. [I have written on this before, and I have no problem with the state recognizing civil unions. The biggest part of the controversy is the attempt to redefine marriage, which has met with greater restrictions than would otherwise occur.] The most contentious effort is the one to completely ban abortion. Which is a simplistic approach to a very complex issue. Note that unlimited abortion is an equally simplistic approach to that issue, though that is the current law.
Between the Evangelical Atheists and the Fundamentalist Christians, all the air has been sucked out of the room with respect to religious discussion in public. I will do what I can to counter this. In effect, I will eventually produce a lot of words that will boil down to, "A pox on both your houses." The intolerance of both groups for any beliefs but theirs runs counter to all the aspirations for Freedom of Religion that this country was founded on.
posted by Bill | 12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home