- Reaction score
- London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
Re: Canaan - conclusion
look, i don't generally mind that sort of thing, but the "twinkle in your eye", as it were, didn't come across - plus this is a PoV i have heard espoused with perfect seriousness and no reverence at all on many occasions. it just seemed the wrong side of nasty.They aren't there as deliberate outrage but only reflect my approach toward all scripture (not just biblical) in general, which you might call irreverent but to me is just reverence of another order.
heh. frankly, i'm generally a lot less rabid once i get to know you. it's just that it was your first post and, as such, i'd had little chance to catch your tone. now i have and it feels a lot less stiff.your rhetorical excesses can leave that impression.)
actually, i agree with you - but first, get to know your audience/interlocutors, then you'll be less likely to get off on the wrong foot.One of the difficulties in facing the concrete realities of what these ideas mean is the shroud of reverence thrown over all scripture, the fear of blasphemy still alive for many, or at least the fear of giving offence or being "rude".
leaving aside the fact that i do not consider the Torah to have "writers", i agree - but i maintain that this idea is not responsible for the survival and influence of Torah's - although it may explain the physical survival and bloodymindedness of the jewish people.None has developed the idea with such power and to such effect as the writers of Torah.
indeed, the texts themselves, when you come to study them, are of a degree of complexity and sophistication that it is hard after a while to conceive of them as human - let alone edited together by primitive tribesmen over a thousand years.At the same time, I believe that the meanings of the texts themselves are far more complex and go well beyond whatever the underlying history might have been.
OK, i understand your point is to provoke discussion. but pointing out that it is tendentious is also a way of discussing it!if the hugely broad-stroked views I'm putting out here are "tendentious", then I don't know how one seriously discusses any issue across religious traditions.
good! CR *shouldn't* be all hearts and flowers. if all we are, ultimately, is a bunch of moderate, reasonable people congratulating each other on our openmindedness and avoiding controversy, how are we ever going to reach those who are different from us in our own communities? as my friend, the muslim liberation theologian farid esack is fond of saying: "is there life after tea?" my point is that we need to get to know each other well enough to engage with these difficult issues, not charge straight into the hard stuff.Is comparative religion all hearts & flowers? Not judging from your postings!
not at all! a complicated solution is still a solution. what is bothering me is, as my teacher says, "it's difficult to be passionate about moderation - extremes are far more compelling."Solution? That implies a simple identifiable problem - like too many minerals in the water supply - that admits of a simple solution.
simple solutions, like slogans, are elegant in their brutality and take advantage of the natural human penchant for heuristics, rationalism and rules of thumb. spirituality is nothing if not the study and practice of the exceptional aspects of humanity.All simple solutions in that context are misguided and dangerous.
i couldn't agree more. welcome to the forum. have you read rodger kamenetz's "the jew in the lotus"? its about the encounter between the dalai lama and a group of rabbis (quite a few of whom i know) in the early 90s. very illuminating.For me it's a not a matter of choosing yoga over the kingdom of G!d, but of recognizing the value and problematics of both. Here I'm talking about the pragmatic in-this-world effects of the various related traditions.
oh, absolutely - i am "giddy with agreement", as you put it. in this respect judaism and buddhism in particular have much in common.I can't speak for the whole tradition, but it's my understanding that such statements are meant instrumentally as a means of removing conceptual obstructions and so clearing the way to direct experience of reality, ultimate or not. Some call this the apophatic method or negative theology.
i agree again. however, judaism and, i suspect, the eastern traditions, nonetheless agree that signs are levers for us to move ourselves and the universe.We shouldn't mistake ultimate reality for our articulations of it, no matter how finely tuned the articulations. G!d, !o! and God are all signs and not reality, though these signs have powerful effects, good and evil, on human life.
umph. i think a rational belief in enlightenment or nirvana is a failure of nerve. attachment to logic and reason is nonetheless an attachment and, in this area, i believe it is a crutch as much as the need to believe that "the Big Beard In The Sky Agrees With Me Kicking This Heathen In The Nuts".So I can say that no, I don't believe in Divine Will in the way many appear to do, but in a way that's irrelevant to the question, since my belief is only based in reason.
as do i. so our difference is perhaps one of degree. to equate the Divine Will with *human* inerrancy is perhaps the most profound idolatry.I just set the bar for the justification of violence fairly high, and higher than is usual in this wacked-out world.
but who is to define "wholesome", "unwholesome", "mind", or "choice"? this is perhaps what the most profound paradox of the abrahamic tradition illustrates - submission to the Divine Will as channelled from the Text through human interpretation gives us the most sublime freedom through our own uncompelled choice.choose wholesome over unwholesome states of mind