Ray vs Scruffy - Split from "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ"

[Rayado]

No. I'm saying that all religions are true, for their time and culture, as metaphorical of inner spiritual potentialities.

So that means that basically, if we ignore the details, they all say the same thing?

[Scruffy]

So that means that basically, if we ignore the details, they all say the same thing?

I don't really like the word 'ignore', but I would say that we need to learn to read metaphor and symbol so that we can look PAST the surface. The denotation of the metaphor, that is to say its outer wrapping, is taken as the message and the connotation, that is it's inner meaning, is ignored. The result is that we are left with the particular “ethnic” inflection of the metaphor, the historical vesture, rather than the living spiritual Truth.

[Rayado]

Now that we can discuss this as its own topic...

Why must we look past the surface? Is it somehow not 'good enough' to convey truth? And how do we determine what is living spiritual Truth?

[Scruffy]

Ok Rayado, I'll discuss this with you for a short while. On the condition that no one else interferes.

I'm not willing to go into depth reguarding this...I prefer to leave it up to your God. I believe your God will lead you to inner knowledge if and when you are good and ready.

First a couple of definitions, so that we are on the same page.

exoteric
1 a : suitable to be imparted to the public - the exoteric doctrine -- compare ESOTERIC b : belonging to the outer or less initiate circle
2 : relating to the outside : EXTERNAL

esoteric
a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone a body of esoteric legal doctrine -- B. N. Cardozo b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group - esoteric terminology - esoteric strategies; broadly : difficult to understand esoteric subjects
2 a : limited to a small circle -engaging in esoteric pursuits- b : PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL -an esoteric purpose-
3 : of special, rare, or unusual interest -esoteric building materials

Why must we look past the surface?

If milk is good enough for you for now, then fine. Stay on a diet of milk. You don't have to move on to solid food. If you're happy with your current level of spiritual development that's what counts. I'm not going to cram solid food down your throat.

But for others, the milk has spoiled. Others need to move on to solid food or starve.

Is it somehow not 'good enough' to convey truth?

It conveys the exoteric truth to the public, as it was designed to do centuries ago. Good enough for some (for now), but when Churches are led by people who have no esoteric knowledge to share with those who are ready for it then certain segments of the Church look elsewhere or spiritually starve.

When Church or government policy is based on mere exoteric understanding it's like the blind leading the blind.

[Rayado]

I'm just about to go to lunch but I'm gonna ask one of the mods for this area to move this particular thread into a forum called the Basketball Court--which means that if anyone else does interfere, they will be moderated and their post will be removed, ensuring that it's just us chatting.

[Rayado]

Ok Rayado, I'll discuss this with you for a short while. On the condition that no one else interferes.

Done.

I'm not willing to go into depth reguarding this...I prefer to leave it up to your God. I believe your God will lead you to inner knowledge if and when you are good and ready.

Save this thought--I'll get to it later on in the discussion.

First a couple of definitions, so that we are on the same page.

exoteric
1 a : suitable to be imparted to the public - the exoteric doctrine -- compare ESOTERIC b : belonging to the outer or less initiate circle
2 : relating to the outside : EXTERNAL

esoteric
a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone a body of esoteric legal doctrine -- B. N. Cardozo b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group - esoteric terminology - esoteric strategies; broadly : difficult to understand esoteric subjects
2 a : limited to a small circle -engaging in esoteric pursuits- b : PRIVATE, CONFIDENTIAL -an esoteric purpose-
3 : of special, rare, or unusual interest -esoteric building materials

And do you agree that these definitions are accurate to portray them as you use them?

If milk is good enough for you for now, then fine. Stay on a diet of milk. You don't have to move on to solid food. If you're happy with your current level of spiritual development that's what counts. I'm not going to cram solid food down your throat.

Actually, that's not what I was getting at. I wasn't looking for polemic, I was actually looking for a suitable answer to the question of why we must look beyond the surface.

But for others, the milk has spoiled. Others need to move on to solid food or starve.

Hold on to this thought too.

It conveys the exoteric truth to the public, as it was designed to do centuries ago. Good enough for some (for now), but when Churches are led by people who have no esoteric knowledge to share with those who are ready for it then certain segments of the Church look elsewhere or spiritually starve.

When Church or government policy is based on mere exoteric understanding it's like the blind leading the blind.

I assume that your "exoteric" truth is an accurate reflection (and not contradiction) of "esoteric" truth? If so, why not go public with the supposedly esoteric things? If not--why not? Does it differ so markedly from the outward teachings that it needs to be concealed?

Jesus had some strong words for those whose actions differed:

Matthew 23:23

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

As a Christian, I have no reason whatsoever to distinguish between 'truths.' The first is simple consistency; the logic just simply demands it. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I could rightly be called a hypocrite (or worse, a liar) if what I did 'inwardly' differed from what I did outwardly.

I am seeing a large disconnect between the things that are being said: although you state terms objectively defined elsewhere(!), you have an expectation that they are binding on both you and me...and elsewhere state that I may be led into "inner truth" by God (perhaps different from everyone else). More simply, I see a contradiction between what you say outwardly and what you say 'inwardly.'

So, if you wouldn't mind answering another question: What do you (not the dictionary, you) say that Truth is?

[Scruffy]

And do you agree that these definitions are accurate to portray them as you use them?

Yeah, I think so.

Actually, that's not what I was getting at. I wasn't looking for polemic, I was actually looking for a suitable answer to the question of why we must look beyond the surface.

Your average Joe doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. But scholars, apologists, truth-seekers, etc must. Wouldn't you agree in principle? After all, the surface is only...well, skin deep.

I assume that your "exoteric" truth is an accurate reflection (and not contradiction) of "esoteric" truth?

Yes and no.

Does it differ so markedly from the outward teachings that it needs to be concealed?

They aren't necessarily concealed...both the mystical and the esoteric paths have been a part of every religion, including Christianity. Even today:

http://www.orderofchristsophia.org/C...mysticism.html
http://www.esotericchristian.com/forum/
http://www.centersoflight.org/christian-mysticism.html

What is Christian mysticism?
Christian mysticism is the “inner path” of Christianity. While the tenets and principles of Christian mysticism do not differ from traditional Christianity, as in all mystical paths, the approach is far more inner and transformative in nature. In mysticism, the emphasis is placed on transcending dogma and coming into a firsthand experience of God and the Soul. Some of the better known Christian mystics have been St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, and St. Therese of Lisieux. (emphasis mine)

Normal looking enough, aren't they?

So, if you wouldn't mind answering another question: What do you (not the dictionary, you) say that Truth is?

I think that will become clear as we go. You don't expect me to play all my cards right now, do you?

[Rayado]

Note: Now that Tweb is back up I will respond to your post this afternoon.

[Rayado]

Yeah, I think so.

Good. We're clear on that, at least.

Your average Joe doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

To his own disadvantage.

But scholars, apologists, truth-seekers, etc must. Wouldn't you agree in principle? After all, the surface is only...well, skin deep.

And this is where the inconsistency becomes greater. The surface is not just skin deep; it is either an accurate reflection of whatever it encompasses, or it is a deception--either intentional or unintentional. You'll see what I mean on that in a minute.

Yes and no.

May I ask why not, since you said that it is--and isn't--an accurate reflection of exoteric and esoteric truth? As I affirm the truth of the Law of Noncontradiction, the rules of logic--which apply to everything that is real--definitely apply here. Therefore I cannot affirm that a public 'truth' can contradict an 'inner' truth.

So much so that I think it wise to quote a certain Jesus of Nazareth on the topic:

"Matthew 5:14-16

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

I therefore ask: how can an "inner" truth and an "outer" truth really not be the same and still be true?

They aren't necessarily concealed...both the mystical and the esoteric paths have been a part of every religion, including Christianity. Even today:

http://www.orderofchristsophia.org/C...mysticism.html
http://www.esotericchristian.com/forum/
http://www.centersoflight.org/christian-mysticism.html


Normal looking enough, aren't they?

I am familiar with the more 'mystical' approaches within Christianity, but I strongly suspect that you're mistaking the accidental features of them with the essential ones--that is, their path may not be public, but it does not contradict the teachings of other Christians and other Christian churches, be they local or denominational. I also affirm that the mystic approach is still governed by the rules of logic and reason, even if they are not used as a basis for their style of worship (because that which is nonrational is not necessarily irrational).

However, there's one little thing I also happen to believe about Christianity that was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas:

[...]that which is introduced into the soul of the student by the teacher is contained in the knowledge of the teacher--unless his teaching is ficticious, which it is improper to say against God. Now the knowledge of the principles that are known to us rationally has been implanted to us by God; for God is the Author of our nature. These principles, therefore, are also contained by the Divine Wisdom. Hence, whatever is opposed to them is opposed to the divine Wisdom and therefore cannot come from God. That which we hold by faith as divinely revealed, therefore, cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge.

From this we evidently gather the following conclusion: whatever arguments are brought forward against the doctrines of faith are conclusions incorrectly derived from the first and self-evident principles embedded in nature. Such conclusions do not have the force of demonstration; they are arguments that are either probable or sophistical [fallacious]. And so there exists the possibility to answer them.
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7

If Christianity is true, all objections to it can be answered with reason. (This is not saying that all of Christianity can be explained with reason, because there are many things that are nonrational within Christianity--i.e., the Trinity. But all things in Christianity affirm the laws of Logic.)

I think that will become clear as we go. You don't expect me to play all my cards right now, do you?

It's more than just that--I really am interested in what you think truth is.

Thank you, once again, for discussing this with me. It's been enjoyable so far.

[Scruffy]

And this is where the inconsistency becomes greater. The surface is not just skin deep; it is either an accurate reflection of whatever it encompasses, or it is a deception--either intentional or unintentional.

What's under your skin? More skin? Or something else? Mustle and bone, of course - different from the skin yet part of the whole.

Continuing with the Human body metaphor...I ask, are your bones an accurate refelction of your skin?

I therefore ask: how can an "inner" truth and an "outer" truth really not be the same and still be true?

How can your skin and your bone really not be the same and still be part of you?

--that is, their path may not be public, but it does not contradict the teachings of other Christians and other Christian churches, be they local or denominational.

The paths vary, it is usually very individualistic, but wherever one 'transcends dogma' one is going to come in conflict with the dogma of the Church eventually. To walk the mystical and esoteric path one must 'transcend dogma' sooner or later. Just as to reach the bone one must 'transcend' the skin...

There's a difference between contradicting and transcending.

It's more than just that--I really am interested in what you think truth is.

I'm afraid that the Truth remains quite ineffable to me. Too abstract to summarize in a post or two.

I will say this, however. The Truth is more perennial than any one religions conception of the divine.

[Scruffy]

And this is where the inconsistency becomes greater. The surface is not just skin deep; it is either an accurate reflection of whatever it encompasses, or it is a deception--either intentional or unintentional.

What's under your skin? More skin? Or something else? Mustle and bone, of course - different from the skin yet part of the whole.

Continuing with the Human body metaphor...I ask, are your bones an accurate reflection of your skin?

I therefore ask: how can an "inner" truth and an "outer" truth really not be the same and still be true?

How can your skin and your bone really not be the same and still be part of you?

--that is, their path may not be public, but it does not contradict the teachings of other Christians and other Christian churches, be they local or denominational.

The paths vary, it is usually very individualistic, but wherever one 'transcends dogma' one is going to come in conflict with the dogma of the Church eventually. To walk the mystical and esoteric path one must 'transcend dogma' sooner or later. Just as to reach the bone one must 'transcend' the skin...

There's a difference between contradicting and transcending.

It's more than just that--I really am interested in what you think truth is.

I'm afraid that the Truth remains quite ineffable to me. Too abstract to summarize in a post or two.

I will say this, however. The Truth is more perennial than any one religions conception of the divine.

[Scruffy]

Grr..how do you edit and/or delete a post now? Can't find the edit post tab.

[Rayado]

What's under your skin? More skin? Or something else? Mustle[sic] and bone, of course - different from the skin yet part of the whole.

Continuing with the Human body metaphor...I ask, are your bones an accurate reflection of your skin?

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask if my beliefs were consistent?

How can your skin and your bone really not be the same and still be part of you?

There is no inconsistency in having both flesh and bones. Even Paul used the analogy of the human body to describe the functions of the various ministries in the Church.

The paths vary, it is usually very individualistic, but wherever one 'transcends dogma' one is going to come in conflict with the dogma of the Church eventually. To walk the mystical and esoteric path one must 'transcend dogma' sooner or later. Just as to reach the bone one must 'transcend' the skin...

But you're ignoring the very mystics you appealed to earlier in saying this. They didn't 'transcend' the doctrine of the Church--in fact many of them are still very highly admired for their zeal for truth and faith. They knew, as do most Christians, that you cannot divorce the two.

There's a difference between contradicting and transcending.

Of course there is. By simply transcending you don't actually oppose things--unless you're trying to oppose things.

I'm afraid that the Truth remains quite ineffable to me. Too abstract to summarize in a post or two.

Can it not be defined then? What about the rules of Logic, like the Law of Non-contradiction? One could easily define truth by the rules of Logic.

I will say this, however. The Truth is more perennial than any one religions conception of the divine.

Would everlasting be a good term for it?

[Scruffy]

But you're ignoring the very mystics you appealed to earlier in saying this. They didn't 'transcend' the doctrine of the Church--in fact many of them are still very highly admired for their zeal for truth and faith. They knew, as do most Christians, that you cannot divorce the two.

While some Christian mystics managed to succesfully walk a difficult tightrope, most were horribly persecuted for claiming direct personal knowledge of a God whom the religious establishment demanded was accessible only through them.

Mysticism is natural. Not supernatural. The natural experiences at the heart of mysticism are the origin of all religions, and so they find their common ground in this common source. Mystical experiences inspired the founders and reformers of religion as well as its greatest heretics.

Mysticism and inner esoteric teachings go hand in hand. A mystic who acheives direct knowledge of God realizes that the outer exoteric teachings are allegory, symbolism, mythology, and not to be taken literally by the initiate. That does not mean they are to be thrown away - only recognized for what they are : stepping stones to be used and passed.

For the uninitiated masses, the allegory and mythology was essential. But now we are in the information age and the walls of literalism are slowly crumbling. That leaves the modern masses with a difficult choice : cling to the myths, or abandon them for atheism, or DIG under the myths for the perennial truths.

[Rayado]

While some Christian mystics managed to succesfully walk a difficult tightrope, most were horribly persecuted for claiming direct personal knowledge of a God whom the religious establishment demanded was accessible only through them.

Some? Try 'most.'

Name some that were persecuted and still claimed to be Christian.

Mysticism is natural. Not supernatural. The natural experiences at the heart of mysticism are the origin of all religions, and so they find their common ground in this common source. Mystical experiences inspired the founders and reformers of religion as well as its greatest heretics.

But that's not what interests me. I'm interested in whether or not they're true. So far you have ignored nearly everything I've said concerning Logic--are you hear to chat or preach?

But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this 'mysticism' is really at the heart of all religions. Does this apply to one Jesus of Nazareth?

Mysticism and inner esoteric teachings go hand in hand. A mystic who acheives direct knowledge of God realizes that the outer exoteric teachings are allegory, symbolism, mythology, and not to be taken literally by the initiate. That does not mean they are to be thrown away - only recognized for what they are : stepping stones to be used and passed.

And you've shown you do not understand the three:

Is such allegory, mysticism, and symoblism true? Even a symbol can be true, as can allegory or even myth--correctly defined. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis both used allegory, myth, and symbolism masterfully to portray the truth of Christianity in their works, and they came nowhere near to abandoning anything of Christianity.

For the uninitiated masses, the allegory and mythology was essential. But now we are in the information age and the walls of literalism are slowly crumbling. That leaves the modern masses with a difficult choice : cling to the myths, or abandon them for atheism, or DIG under the myths for the perennial truths.

This is why I asked you whether or not there was a difference between outer and inner truth. It now appears that your answer is no. So far you've shown no inclination to explain how you arrive at the conclusion that something is true other than this nebulous 'mysticism'--which means that as of right now, I have no good solid reason to accept what you are saying is true. Nothing objective has yet been proffered for that cause.