Following Christ

Originally posted by vistesd
I intended “noncognitive” in the strict sense of incapable of being assigned a propositional truth value (as the term seems generally to be used in ethical and theological noncognitivism). Hence, the spiritual ground point can only be spoken of in expressive (or as bbarr put it, elicitive) language of poetry, or the highly paradoxical language of koans, say ...[text shortened]... ively admit “seems as if” expressions, which at least seem to move toward cognitive statements.)

While I would agree that one cannot exhaust in any way the "spiritual ground point" with propositions or verbal descriptions, I would nevertheless challenge the claim that one can simply not assert any true propositions about it. That seems to be an almost (pardon the expression) dogmatic stance.

EDIT: Here's an example of what I mean. There is no way propositions can exhaust one's experience of another person; but it would be ridiculous to claim that one cannot assert true propositions at all about that person (e.g. "He has blue eyes" or "He is 6'1" tall" or even "He loves me" ).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So are you saying that our concepts can have no correlation whatsoever with the reality (of God)?

Are you saying that God is a real father? What can it mean to say that God is “an infinite being?” What does it mean to say that God is “wholly other?” What does it mean to say: “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation?” (My emphasis?) What does it mean to say God is “all in all?” How can the all-in-all have any proper analogy?

I would say that all God-language (God-concept) is metaphorical, symbolic, analogical, allegorical and/or or paradoxical. As such there may be an isomorphic “correlation.” But even with that, to insist on the “isomorph” as the reality—e.g., God conceived of as strictly paternal (“father” ) and not maternal (“mother” ), I would take as idolatrous, or at least approaching idolatry.

To try to bottle the mystery in delineable concepts is to move in an idolatrous direction. For example, I take very seriously things like—

eheyeh asher eheyeh as a strictly verbal statement (i.e., there is no noun or pronoun) in archaic Hebrew, which can be translated both as “[I] am that [I] am,” or “[I]will be as [I] will be,” or some combination thereof.

YHVH as a strictly verb-construct meaning “was, is, will be,” and including both masculine and feminine be-ing.

That is, I take them seriously as metaphors whose thrust is away from any attempt at an idolatrous “pinning down.”

Let’s take one that goes a bit further: “Shema Ysrael YHVH eloheinu YHVH echad.” What does that mean? That is/was/will-be is singular? Or whole? Is this merely a philosophical assertion? Why should monotheism make more sense than animistic polytheism (aside from Occam’s razor)—or, rather, is it not possible to make a sensible philosophical argument for some kind of polytheism? (I would say that it is.) However, as I noted before, the mystics—theistic or nontheistic—universally speak in terms of harmony, wholeness, one-ness, etc. But does that mean that phenomenal many-ness is a delusion? If so, at what level?

______________________________

I would suggest that the reason that Aquinas did not attempt to describe his famous experience in conceptual language (or any kind of “correlative” language, for that matter) was simply—that he couldn’t. And that is the message that he finally left.

______________________________

The true way of progressing through music is to evolve freely, to go forward, not caring what others think, and in this way, together with one’s development in music, to harmonize the life of one’s soul, one’s surroundings and one’s affairs…

If this principle of music were followed, there would be no need for an external religion. Some day music will be the means of expressing universal religion. Time is wanted for this, but there will come a day when music and its philosophy will become the religion of humanity.

—Hazrat Inayat Khan (a Sufi master)

______________________________

This kind of stance is unsatisfactory to those who want more than “the beauty pageant.” It is unsatisfactory to those who want to treat the mystery as a puzzle to be solved in such a way that they can feel secure within the boundaries of our conceptual understanding. It is unsatisfactory to those who crave some explanation beyond the expressive utterings of such as Julian of Norwich, who want to know what the koan “means” in propositional terms. It is unsatisfactory to those who want some justification for the dance other than the dancing.

The spiritual journey is not about learning to write a treatise on dance; it is about dancing. The treatises are all metaphorical; whether or not those metaphors are “isomorphic” to the experience is a testable hypothesis—but it can only be tested by dancing, in the manner in which Hazrat Inayat Khan speaks of for music. The various religious expressions are either a help or a hindrance in that venture.

No sense hurrying, by the way. Despite our ( metaphorical) talk of paths, there really is no “place” to get to...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
While I would agree that one cannot exhaust in any way the "spiritual ground point" with propositions or verbal descriptions, I would nevertheless challenge the claim that one can simply not assert any true propositions about it. That seems to be an almost (pardon the expression) dogmatic stance.

EDIT: Here's an example of what ...[text shortened]... t that person (e.g. "He has blue eyes" or "He is 6'1" tall" or even "He loves me" ).

We’re posting past each other...

Here's an example of what I mean. There is no way propositions can exhaust one's experience of another person; but it would be ridiculous to claim that one cannot assert true propositions at all about that person (e.g. "He has blue eyes" or "He is 6'1" tall" or even "He loves me" ).

The first two are propositions about physical phenomena. The third is an inductive inference based on behavior (unless you’re psychic).

What can I say however about the love between my wife and myself beyond such induction? Anything? Only through the aesthetic metaphorical and paradoxical expressions of poetry. Compare my “Fana” poem with the statement of Chalcedon. Can they be reduced to physiology, for example?

I suspect that the entire experience of intimacy between my wife and I can be explained physiologically and in terms of evolutionary development. Does that fact in any way diminish the experience? Whatever “meaning” (big scare quotes there) is there for her and I, however, is strictly (and deeply) aesthetic. My “dogmatic” claim is that the spiritual experience (as I broadly “defined” it earlier) is of the same nature—words are “as straw” (unless you appreciate poetry; unless koanic paradox can elicit the robust experience).

Those who are satisfied with conceptual/doctrinal propositions are, in my mind, satisfied with less, not more. And since the spiritual experience is pre- and non-conceptual, one has to drop them at least temporarily—but also completely; not unlike removing colored glasses.

Originally posted by vistesd
Those who are satisfied with conceptual/doctrinal propositions are, in my mind, satisfied with less, not more. And since the spiritual experience is pre- and non-conceptual, one has to drop them at least temporarily—but also completely; not unlike removing colored glasses.

Those who are satisfied purely with aesthetic considerations are, in my mind, also satisfied with less, not more.

As a Christian, I think and believe that we are called to take our whole beings to communion with God (or 'spiritual ground point'😉 -- not just the mystical/spiritual aspect, but also physical (there is a reason why Christian saints emphasise the physicality of prayer!) and mental/rational. I don't think we are meant to check these at the door (so to speak). And, when the mystical experience is over and it is time to "rejoin" the world, the experience isn't meant to be simply hoarded up like some treasure; it is meant to play out in our physical actions and mental ruminations as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Those who are satisfied purely with aesthetic considerations are, in my mind, also satisfied with less, not more.

As a Christian, I think and believe that we are called to take our whole beings to communion with God (or 'spiritual ground point'😉 -- not just the mystical/spiritual aspect, but also physical (there is a reason why Christian sa ...[text shortened]... treasure; it is meant to play out in our physical actions and mental ruminations as well.

The aesthetic does not exclude the physical certainly. Nor is “rumination” necessarily a non-aesthetic activity.

I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve really said in this post. My issue is with the nature of those “ruminations,” and what kind of knowledge we think they give us access to. I wouldn’t even know how to go about “believing” the Chalcedonian statements propositionally (or the Nicene Creed, for that matter).

I am not being critical of Aquinas either; I certainly can’t pretend to know what was going on in his mind, but it does seem that he was confronted with an experience for which he, with all his intellect and talent, could not find satisfactory tools to express—at least in conceptual language. (He doesn’t strike me as a “hoarder”.) Sometimes, however, to steal from Marshall McLuhan, “the medium is the message”—in this case a cryptic, allusive statement followed by silence...

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
no, because he really is the savior.

I don't follow. Explain.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If it's fair to rephrase your question as "Can one get to the Father without explicitly endorsing Jesus as their Saviour?", then I'd have to say probably, so long as one follows the will of the Father. At least it appears that Jesus saw that as much more important than endorsing Him as their Savior.

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord ...[text shortened]... ks?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

This passage you cite only suggests that not all who profess that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour will be saved, not that some of those who do not profess that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour will be saved.

I tend to believe that one can exemplify Christian virtues without professing them, and that those who profess them most earnestly tend not to exemplify them.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How exactly does one go about this?

When I say..."I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'."
I'm whispering "I was lost,
Now I'm found and forgiven."

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need Christ to be my guide.


When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I am weak
And need his strength to carry on.

When I say..."I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
And need God's mercy to clean my mess.

When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
But, God believes I am worth it.

When I say..."I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon his name.

When I say ..."I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou,
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow!

Maya Angelou

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This passage you cite only suggests that not all who profess that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour will be saved, not that some of those who do not profess that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour will be saved.

I tend to believe that one can exemplify Christian virtues without professing them, and that those who profess them most earnestly tend not to exemplify them.

I realize that the passage does not explicitly state that those who follow the will of the Father, but do not profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior, will be saved, hence the 'probably'. It was only to establish the idea that it appears that Jesus saw following the will of the Father as the way to the Father and that no amount of 'professing' was going to get you there. I also have to believe that there's more than "suggestion" in that passage.

Here's an interesting line of inquiry regarding the oft-cited John 14:6:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.

Jesus says he IS "the way, the truth, and the life". Try reading the second sentence by substituting Jesus with what He says He IS - "No one comes to the Father, except through the way, the truth, and the life".

Here's another interesting line of inquiry: Jesus asks one to follow the will of the Father. If one follows the will of the Father, is he not also following what Jesus asks of him? Whether he professes to follow Jesus or not? So, is he not a follower of Jesus? If one doesn't follow the will of the Father, is he following what Jesus asks of him? Whether he professes to follow Jesus or not? So, is he a follower of Jesus?



I'd be interested your thoughts about the above. Or anyone else's for that matter.

I have to agree with your observation about Christian virtues, though I'd probably substitute "vociferously" for "earnestly". In my book, if you're truly earnest, you're making sure you're walking the walk.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus says he IS "the way, the truth, and the life". Try reading the second sentence by substituting Jesus with what He says He IS - "No one comes to the Father, except through the way, the truth, and the life".

Nice. Jesus is the Way because he has become it, if you like; no vestige of his illusory self remains; imitating his example takes you home.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I realize that the passage does not explicitly state that those who follow the will of the Father, but do not profess Jesus as their Lord and Savior, will be saved, hence the 'probably'. It was only to establish the idea that it appears that Jesus saw following the will of the Father as the way to the Father and that no amount of 'professing' was going to k, if you're truly earnest, you're making sure you're walking the walk.

Interesting thoughts. Here is an alternate translation from the Greek:

I-I-am (ego eimi) the journey (way, road: hodos) and the unconcealed (aletheia) and the life; no one goes/comes toward the father if not by-means-of (di) me.

___________________________

Scholars have noted the unusual redundancy of ego eimi in Jesus’ so-called “I am” statements in John’s gospel. One theory is that this harks back to God’s answer to Moses at the burning bush: ehyeh asher ehyeh, “I am that I am.” And: “"Thus you shall say to the Israelites, 'I AM (ehyeh) has sent me to you.' " Thus, Jesus is speaking here as, or of, that “I Am.”

It’s also interesting to look at that word usually translated simply as “through”—di or dia. Here are the other instances of di/dia translated as “through” in the same gospel (it is not the Greek word used in John 20:31)—

NRS John 1:3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being...

NRS John 1:7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.

NRS John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

NRS John 1:17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

NRS John 3:17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

NRS John 4:4 But he had to go through Samaria.

NRS John 11:4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, "This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

NRS John 17:20 "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word,

In each case, the alternate translation “by means of” (which I did not make up) fits quite well (perhaps “by way of” in 4:4).

What this has suggested to some is that the action is Jesus’, as the Christ, the logos tou theou in human (anthropos) manifestation. Such an understanding removes the notion that faith (pistis) is some kind of “work of the head” by which the individual can effect her/his salvation (which notion may derive from contemporary usages of the word “belief/believe” as a translation for pistis/pisteo).* It also seems to line up better with the Orthodox understanding of “salvation” (soterias) as healing, or making well or making whole—which is closer to the Greek meaning—than the more juridical concepts that developed in the West.

It would take considerable exegesis to weave all that together with the rest of the NT, but it can—and has—been done. One simply has to revisit the Greek; to let go of the juridical model of soteriology; and to understand all human action, including—even especially—“faithing,” as response, not criteria. pistis is trust, confidence, openness vis-à-vis God and God’s healing charis; one quits struggling and trusts the physician. (We may be a bit like the half-dead man, who cannot even ask the Samaritan to help him; and God may be the Samaritan—an alternative reading that does not conflict with, but compliments, the standard one.)

__________________________

* The English word “believe” originally meant to “hold dear,” and was related both to “love” and “leave” (as in permission). As such, it was an adequate, if perhaps poetic, translation for pisteo, which means, not to “have” faith, but to faith. This is not quite the same as the modern understanding of to hold an opinion, or to think or conclude that something is true—although the older meaning of confidence or trust has not disappeared from usage.

A decision (or leap) of faith, then, is a decision to trust or have confidence (con-fide?) in the face of uncertainty—i.e., a “risk of faith.” This is an attitude that most athletes are familiar with.

It is also why metanoia cannot mean simply changing one’s thoughts or opinions or conclusions...

Originally posted by vistesd
(We may be a bit like the half-dead man, who cannot even ask the Samaritan to help him; and God may be the Samaritan—an alternative reading that does not conflict with, but compliments, the standard one.)

Actually, that was the primary way that parable was read for most of Christian history. The "standard reading" became popular only relatively recently.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, that was the primary way that parable was read for most of Christian history. The "standard reading" became popular only relatively recently.

Thank you. I don't think I ever heard that. (I find a gold coin now and then...) 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you. I don't think I ever heard that. (I find a gold coin now and then...) 🙂

I know a theologian who's doing his doctorate on the interpretation of Jesus's parables through history. He's the one who pointed out the Good Samaritan case to me (at one in the morning over a few bottles of wine! 😉)

I think I saw an Augustine commentary some time back confirming this.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I know a theologian who's doing his doctorate on the interpretation of Jesus's parables through history. He's the one who pointed out the Good Samaritan case to me (at one in the morning over a few bottles of wine! 😉)

I think I saw an Augustine commentary some time back confirming this.

...at one in the morning over a few bottles of wine!

Now that’s the way to do it!! 🙂