If I had to give my idea a thesis statement, it would be this: Man can follow almost any religion and find salvation. Note: I am not saying that "Man through almost any religion can find salvation." I don't believe that. And for the sake of brevity, I will just say that I don't believe that because I don't think one finds salvation due to the inherent truths of most religions; that would be a hard position to justify. Rather, it may be by the nature of the person's search for truth in which they find salvation, and there are alot of people out there with a lot of different beliefs. And yes, they can all find happiness together somewhere upon the clouds in the afterlife, together; peace and love.
So the first thing I need to address is Truth. I believe in objective truth, that is, there is an absolute right and God is probably the only one who knows it. Man, as subjects, live as moral agents, therefore follow subjective truths. (I'll find better wording for that later). But to make it all clear, I will rely on my proven artistic talents. I've supplied you with a stunning, elaberate visual which will hopefully help as I move along.
1. Indicated by the finely detailed column in the middle (shame the shrunk size makes it only look like a slightly thicker black line...oh well), that is Objective Truth, the foundation of our moral existence.
2. All the other smaller lines represent man's attempt to capture this truth, some closer and some farther (which ones contain 'more' truth is not really the point)
3. There are some hell-in-a-handbasket religions out there where those who follow it never really come close to finding objective truth being that the religion is such an overwhelming hinderance, like the followers of Stephanie Meyer. Twilight is retarded and if you're reading this blog, I pity your soul.
4. For all you Shintoists reading this, my sincerist apologies. You can hang out with Steph, there's some room over there.
Now that we've efficiently and thoroughly defined objective and subjective truth, let's move on. The one thing I believe with my whole heart is that we must follow our our conscience first and formost above all else. The Catechism agrees with me so I don't feel too alone way out in left field. However, this freedom comes with the great responsibility of forming our conscience as best we can; maybe the greatest burden we as humans endure. Incidentally, this is why the Church believes that those who are not believers can be saved. How unfair would God be if he expected an isolated human to figure out the mysteries of the Church all by his lonesome, never even hearing of Christ.
Lastly, I would like to use my faith (Catholicism) as an example, but for the sake of argument, you can simply use your own (if your religion allows for that), and now I will come across really narrow-minded to prove a point. I believe that Roman Catholic Church is synonomous with objective truth, that is Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Therefore, I as a subject, am in a position to discover much of the this Truth since I am on the truest path, giving me the best chance of doing what's right, and achieving salvation. However, even as a Catholic (assuming it really is objective truth), I am still prone to doing wrong, and consequenatially, my will could never perfectly be God's will. Therefore, me as a person, and just because I am human, have already slipped off the afore mentioned finely detailed column. Damn. But we as limited moral agents will never fully discover and understand everything, and even the holiest of people have done wrong, however miniscule it may be. So the main point here is that what matters most (though not exclusively) is how much we try to find truth. (PS: I'm sorry if I've way over-simplified the Church's process of salvation. My bad.)
Now given what I've written, I am following Catholicism because I believe it is Truth, but I will be judged not by necessarily what I believe in, but rather that fact that I believe it is Truth! This means that the faithful Hindu could be better off than I am (and I admit from personal experience this may be true...). Because in the end, if one seeks Truth with their whole heart, I believe God will certainly reward them no matter how much they got right. And for those who seek truth, in the end, one will strip themselves of any pride and will see and accept Truth itself in whatever Objective Form it really is. So if the real Truth turns out to be Buddha, than my search for Truth even in the Catholic faith will have prepared me and formed my subjective conscience enough to know the objective Truth when I see it when the veil is pulled back, i.e., when I'm dead.
By the way, I'm not taking credit for the this idea and think it's original lol. I just don't know who exactly has written something like this. I'm told Kierkegaard has written something similar....
Anyway, I'm sure you have an objection here or there, but I would like to pose the first. Given what I have said, and I admit it could be explained better, an objection can be made regarding sincerity of seeking truth. In other words, it seems plausible to say that if someone truly is seeking Truth (let's assume the Church is still #1 ...not that I'm biased or anything) and came across the Church and her teachings, how could they not see it at some point in their lifetime? It seems odd to say a genuine truth seeker could stand right in front of what he's looking for, turn away from it, but still find salvation and reconcile later. Hmm, good question. I have my opinion, but I'd rather here yours.
Greetings brothers and sisters of the human race, and in particular Yoda –
ReplyDeleteYour general points seem interesting taken individually – as a coherent whole…I’m not sure. However, instead of taking this as an opportunity to argue, I will quote a book I admire to back you up. Here’s from the CCC: “Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation.”
I am sure I will add to the discussion at a later time with certain argumentative issues – specifically your use of the word “salvation.”
an initial comment: my favorite part is the graph which has separate lines for muslims and the religion of islam...
ReplyDeleteOk, now some more thoughts. Yoda, I appreciate many of your points, but at a basic level I don't believe we are on the same page, and this leads to a few points of difference in the way you discuss religions as being a way to the Truth (do you mean Jesus? or truths about reality- the way the world really is?)
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, you say "the Roman Catholic Church is synonymous with objective truth". The Roman Catholic Church would not say this; what about Byzantine and other rites? The Church is the bride of Christ; it is not itself the Truth. It cannot save anyone. But your point was that because a Catholic believes his "faith" is "true" God will reward that person, just as he would a sincere Hindu, Muslim, Twilight-reader, etc.
I think that here is where our different world-views collide. Your point is well-made that it would be cruel of God to damn someone because they'd never heard of the Church, or Jesus. But again, the Church doesn't save the person; Jesus's incarnation, death and resurrection saved ALL human beings. It's no longer a matter of God "rewarding" or "punishing." God is Love; Love is Communion. "Damnation" is simply leaving the communion; opting for disintegration and diabolism. The Church offers this truth to people: come to the Communion. People begin their journey to Heaven (Communion) or Hell (solitude) long before they die; they continue that journey after they die.
Thus in my view, all humans, being created out of Love and by Love, are naturally drawn to the Communion with Love for which they were made. Various human traditions, revelations by the Spirit, and natural human gifts all point us (when rightly ordered) toward Communion to some degree. Out of the major religions, the Church is OBJECTIVELY the best, because it actually points objectively to the fundamental truth that God is Love: Father, Son, and Holy Creator Spirit. Other religions are inferior in that they only point to certain aspects of God. Muslims see that God is a person, but to them is is primarily Master; his will is above his intellect, a fundamental moral flaw. Hindus approach the fundamental Truth of God's omnipotence, but miss his Personhood and thus all the relational aspects. Judaism has profound treasures of God's intimate love for his people (song of songs) but the Jews are not bold enough to accept that God really would come physically to his bride and invite her into the holy of holies, into the eternal Communion of Father, Son, and Spirit. Most mythologies I have read recognize the personal interest of the gods in human affairs, but ultimately make the gods in the image of man, instead of the other way around.
That's how I see things
[The skeptic slumbers not nor sleeps]:
ReplyDeleteI shall respond to Yoda’s article in light of my own concocted form of “meaning theory.” Let me be honest and tell you that this rejoinder does not address Yoda’s religious quandary; instead, it addresses his “method of categorization and meaning.” This is not an attempt to be annoying, but rather an endeavor to get at some of Yoda’s presuppositions – or at least certain presuppositions of his method of categorization and meaning.
Let me initially say that things – i.e. ideas, concepts, words, phrases, situations – must have a context for them to have meaning; furthermore, ideas/concepts/actions have different meaning in different contexts. For example, shaking hands with someone has a different meaning in a culture where this active symbol means an appropriate greeting than in a culture where this means something rather disrespectful.
How does this apply to Yoda’s argument? Your thesis is as follows: “Man can follow almost any religion and find salvation.” But what does salvation mean without an appropriate context? Not too much. In the context of a specific religion – i.e. Christianity or Hinduism – salvation does have a specific meaning. But from which context are you interpreting the word salvation? Once this is decided, many other things about salvation – including things your article questions – follow suit.
You seem to dodge answering from which context you are interpreting everything for the sake of having your argument apply to all religions. However, instead of making your argument broader, you are actually making it vaguer, and hence, less meaningful.
Am I arguing semantics or definitions? Sort of... However, my point goes beyond that: I am saying that you can’t really take an objective, unbiased, non-specific stance on religion and salvation.
You seem to be taking a watered-down quasi-Christian approach. However, you’re using this context to interpret Hinduism, and this can’t really be done – at least not in the way you’re trying.
Once your context is decided upon (or created), answers to your own questions will follow.
This entry made me giggle because your sarcasm/dry humor is hilarious...but on a more serious note...
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about your theory a lot the past few days…and I a question (mind you, they are questions…which means I hope you won’t stop talking to me because I ask themJ ).
Ok, so you have established that you believe the following: “I believe that Roman Catholic Church is synonomous with objective truth, that is Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” which would mean that you believe the Bible is truth, right? (Because I am 99% sure that the Catholic Church believes that.)
If you believe the Bible to be truth (as your faith would claim is quite important), then I believe you will find the following verse important:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.”
So, my question (finally I’m getting to my question lol) is: Have you gone through the process of using the Bible (i.e. Truth) in order to prove your theory?
P.S. I find much freedom in this verse because it means that we do not necessarily have to hold onto traditions and things that we were brought up with. We are to prove ALL things and only hold onto that which is GOOD. If it is not good, then get rid of it.
I believe this is a never-ending process throughout life. Sometimes we have held onto things for years and years, only to finally realize it is not something worth holding onto and may be a falsehood rather than truth anyway. We are all a work in progress and God is constantly revealing new things to us or working on different areas of our lives (that is, if we are seeking Him and if we allow Him to do a work in our lives).
This past week a wise man I know was talking about porosity, which “the quality or state of being porous and the ratio of the volume of interstices of a material to the volume of a mass.” He looked at the wall and said, “Technically there are more holes in that wall than there is solid.” Metaphorically speaking, ideas that appear good aren’t always solid, they may be filled with holes (some having more dangerous or bigger holes than others). That being said, in our never-ending search for truth we MUST MUST MUST (I believe it to ba an obligation...laziness is no excuse) “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.”
I don't have much time, but I will make a quick comment in response to supportive Jonas and all you others. To Jonas: thank you, love the quote.
ReplyDeleteTo everyone else: It has appeared to me pretty quickly when I read over what I wrote that I merged a couple ideas together which caused some conflict. Originally this idea was only in the context of Christianity (which would somewhat clarify what skrignov brought up, which is very true). So basically I took my idea and i figured what the hell, and threw in a bunch of other religions, clearly very haphazardly. Its fuinny cuz I noticed a slight problem towards the end when I said: "you can simply use your own" and quickly added "(if your religion allows for that)" but hoped it wasnt too big of a blunder. Well its a big blunder.
So what I think I have done here if I can analyze my own idea, is created a Christian notion of salvation and attempted to apply my idea exclsively of Christianity to all religions. That was not very understanding of me.
Furthermore, what I think my idea sounds like now that im brushing aside the accumulating cobwebs of my college education and remembering, is Karl Rahner's idea of 'anonymous christians'. Hmm. I'm not sure I want to align myself with his ideas. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, let me know if our ideas are similar.... ok i'll add more later, and maybe reread Rahner's theory and get back to the drawing board.
Yoda, in your last comment, you said, "So what I think I have done here if I can analyze my own idea, is created a Christian notion of salvation and attempted to apply my idea exclsively of Christianity to all religions. That was not very understanding of me."
ReplyDeleteThe Christian notion of salvation MUST apply to all religions, to all human beings universally, or else it is meaningless. Christianity IS objective, and it IS universal. That is why we are Christians. It is good, it is proven, and we must hold fast to it.
Nice to see us back at it here. I think I'll do my best to help Yoda out on a few points and also raise a few question.
ReplyDeleteFirst distinction Yoda makes is the objective truth/subjective truth one. I think it is really important to grasp the implied distinction. First, I think Yoda is trying to draw a line between two sorts of questions, first a metaphysical one and secondly an epistemological one. Objective truth fits into a metaphysical discussion and Yoda grants its existence. The subjective nature of truth stems from our decidedly imperfect knowledge of said objective truth. We want to say it exists, but that is not to say anything about what it contains. For humans to know what it contains we need a method—a path, to truths contents. For simplicities sake let’s deem the major (and not so major) religions as these proposed paths to truth. I would guess some were good some were not so good (i.e. Twilight). I think this amounts to a fairly standard picture that should be mostly untroubling for people. The implications are that each religion is not itself Truth but a means to it (and insomuch that is true contains truth as well). Here I think Skrig’s context comment is apt, but perhaps in a different sense then he meant.
“Salvation” is kinda a poor word choice since it does carry with it a Christian connotation. The connotation isn’t strictly a semantic one either but one of legitimate ‘meaning.’ The Hinduistic notion of “salvation” is not salvation but release from the cycles of samkara and karma, facilitated through ones personal choice to be released.
(quick digression: the last comment really only applies to traditional yoga (jnana) and not to devotional sects (Bhakti) whose acceptance of a personal god, and an immense emphasize on love/devotion do allow their notion of karmic release to be used interchangeably with “salvation” even in the Christian sense, at least in my humble opinion)
Anyway, yeah Yoda is speaking about “salvation” from a Christian viewpoint, and not implying (don’t think anyway) that every religion does in the end have the same notion of it. The implication sounds more like “in death, those who honestly sought truth will find that they were Christians the whole time, and that Jesus was who they were seeking, tho the understood it only through their religion in life.” Not bad if it can be justified…
More on context, I think it is important to recognize that, yeah in religious discussion one is always carrying a bias. Not a “bad” thing per say, just how it is. We don’t get to speak from a neutral perspective, even the atheists. We can try tho, and in recognizing that there really might not be one, we are end up in a better place then ignorance of it would bring us. I do think that there are a few important points to recognize in that vein. 1. Given that our religious search for that Objective Truth is epistemic we are all using that same tools to get there, i.e. we all have access to the same epistemic faculties. So I may unflinchingly believe my faith is correct, so does some Hindu theological blog writer belief unflinching that their faith is correct. Both those beliefs, would have been built using the same basic tools, experience, reason, example, divine revelation (tho it is hard for me to see how one could accept “divine revelation” as a means to belief, when the necessary prior belief that it is divinely inspired, must stem from the belief that it is supposed to create) in the end, their conviction is made of the same sorts of things mine is. This is not to say that they contentually (new word!) the same, but type of belief is the same. So what is the difference between my belief and the Hindu’s? I could respond, “Despite the fact that we both truly believe, the difference is I’m right, and they are wrong,” and certainly one would believe that but that statement stems from the belief itself, and cannot count for the outside unbiased judgment that it implicitly claims to be. Ones’ justification for saying that stems from the prior acceptance of the faith, and in that the Hindu has just as much right to say it (provided that the Hindu sect actually does believe the Christian is wrong)
So I think we have a few pictures when it comes to understanding Objective Truth. I think it is important to recognize which pulpit one is speaking from, in order to understand how to approach it. If as a catholic I say, “within the Catholic Church subsists the fullness of Truth” I do need to recognize that that statement stems from my beliefs in the validity of the catholic church, from a theoretical neutral perspective I could check that by looking at Objective Truth and seeing whether in fact the Catholic church does do that. But I cannot, at least not anywhere near that clearly, and trying to has been the basic premise of all religious apologetics.
Honestly not sure how this relates anymore…but It was fun to write again; next time I’ll tether my thoughts a bit. So much more…Hell I have even brought up the idea that maybe God is unknowable, the objective Uncertainty, as Kierkegaard would say…
Basil and Yoda,
ReplyDeleteIf I were so bold as to respond to Basil’s response to Yoda, I would say this: Yoda didn’t mean that he can’t judge other religions’ ideas of salvation from a Christian perspective. Of course he can, and I think he knows that. What he meant by his words (I think) was that he was (incorrectly) using a Christian perspective to attempt to define salvation for all religions. The outcome was a Christian one, and this is fine; however, it wasn’t a universal religious perspective - and I think that was his intention.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThats correct Jonas. To echo his words, the Christian must believe that salvation (through Christ's ultimate sacrifice) was for all people. But to take that perspective and assume all religions carry a similar notion would be incorrect (as I admit), for example, if I took that notion and applied it to Jahova's witnesses I would be wrong... at least I think so. Anyway, Nice addition porch rat. I'll wait to comment until you post something about the objective uncertainty. way to show off your hindu knowledge. citti vritti my friend
ReplyDelete