Hi Wim,
> 'As far as I'm aware Anglicanism is the only branch of Christianity which
> makes Reason into an equivalent authority with scripture and tradition
> (church).'
> Maybe you should study the Protestant branch of Christianity a bit more. I
> am no theologian (I should ask my father, who is) and I don't know if they
> officially state 'Reason' as a source of authority. Among the more liberal
> Protestants the original Protestant position that scripture is the only
> source of authority is very much softened by re-interpretations of the
Bible
> in the light of modern values and scientific insights however.
You haven't actually said that I'm wrong on this! I have spent *some* time
looking at Protestantism (and one of my best friends is about to marry a
German Lutheran minister, with whom I've had a few conversations about
training etc) and I stand by my original comment, that Anglicanism - so far
as I know - is the only branch of Christianity that makes Reason into an
authority. I have problems with that, but it has its good sides as well.
> My branch of Quakers trusts primarily in direct revelation that reaches us
> from beyond human effort and comprehension, so also from beyond reason.
> Scripture and tradition are seen as indirect sources of revealed value
> ('Truth'): usefull to test and practise discerning revealed value, but a
> primary source of authority themselves.
At some point I'll be able to come back to that....
> For me it being 'prejudiced in favor of any reasonable alternative' that
> makes me choose to use 'radical' in its original sense. Funny that you do
> the same with your conservative bias...
I suspect the bias kicks in at a later level. We're both religious
Europeans, that determines quite a lot.
> I'm fine with your interpretation of 'doctrine' ... if you agree that that
> was its meaning until 800 years ago and is not its usual meaning nowadays.
Fair enough. I'd like to re-educate the world on that one though.
> I agree that historically churches may have been justified in giving
> preserving social quality priority over developing intellectual quality
and
> allowing society to degenerate. Do you agree that preserving society is no
> task of religion any more in our (Western) society and that its priorities
> therefore should again be prophetical criticism of the status quo?
I do agree with the first part of that, not so sure that the task of
religion is solely a prophetic critique. I would say that the prophetic
critique is the fruit of religious development, not the raison d'etre.
> I do think a church can exist that doesn't say 'this is the truth' but
> merely 'this is the path to Truth/Meaning, this is what we have found and
> this is how our lives testify to that. Experience its value for yourself.'
> Quakers do qualify (imperfectly of course, we are only human). To warn
> ourselves against stating absolute truths, we often preface our texts that
> could be misunderstood as such with the quotation from an 1656 epistle
from
> a meeting of elders to Quakers in the north of Britain: 'these things we
do
> not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the
> measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided; and so in the
light
> walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the
> letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.'
>
So the advance of Quakerism is to have embedded at the heart of it "we could
be wrong"? Didn't Aquinas say something similar at the end of his Summa? (In
other words, to my knowledge - and acknowledging that the church has always
fallen short of this - this is an overlap with orthodox Christianity)
> You asked me to 'unpack' my: 'science might be better understood as
> explaining experience and describing a ... "reality" behind it than as
> merely describing it'.
> Science intends to describe 'reality', not experience. A postulated
> 'reality' is supposed to explain experience. Of course science also
> describes experience (e.g. results of scientific experiments) in order to
be
> able to test the 'fit' of the 'reality' it postulates with this
description
> of experience. This 'fit' of 'reality' with experience is experienced as
> being of higher quality if the description of 'reality' is relatively
simple
> compared to the diversity of experimental or spontaneous experience that
can
> be 'explained' with it. This experience of 'fit' is what we call 'truth'.
> In other words: Describing experience in science is only a means. Its end
is
> convincing people of the 'truth' of the 'reality' science describes.
So would you say that the aim of science if overly ambitious? (Can they get
to that reality?)
>
> I'm alright with describing religious belief as something abstracted from
> trust/faith in 'some pattern at a higher level than intellect'. It is then
> an intellectual way of grasping something that is beyond intellect (closer
> to DQ). As long as it is understood as only a 'pointer to the moon' that
is
> fundamentally unable to show us the moon itself, that is alright with me.
> Religious belief may not be a matter of personal opinion, but it IS a
matter
> of personal experience of DQ/Meaning/Truth. The correspondence of
religious
> belief to DQ-'reality' can't be tested by intellect. A church trying to
lay
> down 'the moon' in doctrines, even if it calls them provisional, is doing
> something immoral according to my MoQ.
I'm happy with that. I still think that the church can say, in the manner of
what you quoted - this is what we have found to be true...
>
> I defined religion as pursuit of re-experiencing DQ. You said 'liberals
> might describe it as about an authentic life' you 'would say that it is
> about becoming who you are'.
> What about describing religion as going back to your roots, to DQ, as
being
> 'radical' in that original sense, as loosening up static patterns of
values
> (recognizing our need for them) to create more room for DQ?
> It seems to me such definitions can all be quite easily integrated.
Amen to that.
Something you might appreciate:
Moses and the Shepherd
Moses heard a shepherd on the road praying,
"God,
where are you? I want to help You, to fix Your shoes
and comb your hair. I want to wash Your clothes
and pick the lice off. I want to bring You milk,
to kiss Your little hands and feet when it's time
for You to go to bed. I want to sweep Your room
and keep it neat. God, my sheep and my goats
are Yours. All I can say, remembering You,
is ayyyyyyy and ahhhhhhhh."
Moses could stand it no longer.
"Who are you talking to?"
"The one who made us,
and made the earth and made the sky."
"Don't talk about shoes
and socks with God! And what's this with Your little hands
and feet? Such blasphemous familiarity sounds like
you're chatting with your uncles.
Only something that grows
needs milk. Only someone with feet needs shoes. Not God!
Even if you meant God's human representatives,
as when God said, 'I was sick, and you did not visit me,'
even then this tone would be foolish and irreverent.
Use appropriate terms. Fatima is a fine name
for a woman, but if you call a man Fatima,
it's an insult. Body-and-birth language
are right for us on this side of the river,
but not for addressing the Origin,
not for Allah."
The shepherd repented and tore his clothes and sighed
and wandered out into the desert.
A sudden revelation
came then to Moses. God's voice:
You have separated Me
from one of my own. Did you come as a prophet to unite,
or to sever?
I have given each being a separate and unique way
of seeing and knowing and saying that knowledge.
What seems wrong to you is right for him.
What is poison to one is honey to someone else.
Purity and impurity, sloth and diligence in worship,
these mean nothing to Me.
I am apart from all that.
Ways of worshipping are not to be ranked as better
or worse than one another.
Hindus do Hindu things.
The Dravidian Muslims in India do what they do.
It's all praise, and it's all right.
It's not Me that's glorified in acts of worship.
It's the worshippers! I don't hear the words
They say. I look inside at the humility.
That broken-open lowliness is the Reality,
not the language! Forget phraseology.
I want burning, burning.
Be friends
with your burning. Burn up your thinking
and your forms of expression!
Moses,
those who pay attention to ways of behaving
and speaking are one sort.
Lovers who burn
are another."
Don't impose a property tax
on a burned out village. Don't scold the Lover.
The "wrong" way he talks is better than a hundred
"right" ways of others.
Inside the Kaaba
it doesn't matter which direction you point
your prayer rug!
The ocean diver doesn't need snowshoes!
The Love-Religion has no code or doctrine.
Only God.
So the ruby has nothing engraved on it!
It doesn't need markings.
God began speaking
deeper mysteries to Moses. Vision and words,
which cannot be recorded here, poured into
and through him. He left himself and came back.
He went to eternity and came back here.
Many times this happened.
It's foolish of me
to try and say this. If I did say it,
it would uproot our human intelligences.
It would shatter all writing pens.
Moses ran after the shepherd.
He followed the bewildered footprints,
in one place moving straight like a castle
across a chessboard. In another, sideways,
like a bishop.
Now surging like a wave cresting,
now sliding down like a fish,
with always his feet
making geomancy symbols in the sand,
recording
his wandering state.
Moses finally caught up
with him.
"I was wrong. God has revealed to me
that there are no rules for worship.
Say whatever
and however your loving tells you to. Your sweet blasphemy
is the truest devotion. Through you a whole world
is freed.
Loosen your tongue and don't worry what comes out.
It's all the light of the Spirit."
The shepherd replied,
"Moses, Moses,
I've gone beyond even that.
You applied the whip and my horse shied and jumped
out of itself. The Divine Nature and my human nature
came together.
Bless your scolding hand and your arm.
I can't say what has happened.
What I'm saying now
is not my real condition. It can't be said."
The shepherd grew quiet.
When you look in a mirror,
you see yourself, not the state of the mirror.
The fluteplayer puts breath into a flute,
and who makes the music? Not the flute.
The Fluteplayer!
Whenever you speak praise
or thanksgiving to God, it's always like this
dear shepherd's simplicity.
When you eventually see
through the veils to how things really are,
you will keep saying again
and again,
"This is certainly not like
we thought it was!"
(Rumi)
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST