What About the Teachings of Jesus?
So I was talking the other day, about the CS Lewis question on Jesus’ position in life. But, the historical person of Jesus - who may or may not have existed, said various things and died - is, in my mind, kind of separate from the teachings that are attributed to him.
I don’t think we should dismiss the teachings attributed to Jesus just because of their provenance. I don’t see how that would be either rational or reasonable. I think we should ideally judge ideas on their own merits, not on our like or dislike of the people that said them.
I’m personally interested in the sayings and parables attributed to Jesus because they form a strong part of my cultural identity - I grew up listening to Bible stories - and also because I think some of them are illuminating. I don’t think that they are the be all and end all of humanity, of course.
What I think they definitely are, is odd. If you strip away any interpretation of what they mean, they aren’t very straightforward. I appreciate this in the way of a curiousity, and it can make them much more striking. But definitely still odd - like the Kingdom of God is like a someone who invites a someone off the street to a wedding feast and then throws him out for not being dressed smartly enough (Matthew 2:1-13).
What do you think about the sayings attributed to Jesus? Do you ignore them as religious claptrap? Do you think they have value but are vastly over-rated? Do you try to live by them (if that’s even possible)? Leave a comment and let me know.
Popularity: 31% [?]
Disentangling Truth from Facts
Sometimes, I get round to thinking. Not often, but sometimes. One of the things that I’ve been thinking about lately is the nature of truth.
You see, truth is a slippery thing. I get the impression that a lot of fundamentalist believers and non-believers present a very limited view of truth at times. The limited view that I’m talking about is the one that presents facts as truth, and truth as facts.
Now, I’m pretty sure that anything that is factual is true. But should we really think that something must be factual to be true? For example, there are those that believe that Bible to be literal fact. And there are those (including me) who say that it is not.
But to my mind, the whole thing is irrelevant. Because the facts don’t form all the truth in the world. Think about the tale of the tortoise and the hare. I’m going to stick my neck out and say that there aren’t and never have been any hares and tortoises racing each other. But if you have any familiarity with Aesop’s fables, it’s easy to see that that’s missing the point. It isn’t factual, but it is truthful.
Other kinds of truth, are more helpful than facts. They illustrate important lessons about the meaning of life. They can lead us to a greater and more meaningful understanding of our existence. They can enable us to be better human beings, if we take them to heart. These are the truths that I seek.
You might argue that without authority behind a text, you won’t know when there is truth in it. Nobody said that things were going to be easy. We all bring our past experiences, knowledge and understanding to bear as we try to discern truth, we do the best we can with the tools that we have. Some truths come quickly and easily, and others elude us for a lifetime, but there is no other way.
If a religious text is to have any value at all, then I don’t care whether it is factual, it must be true.
Image by Eric Charlton
Popularity: 30% [?]
Point of View and Frustration
I’m fortunate enough to know many thoughtful individuals who are commited to living value-filled lives. As is the way with these things, some of them are fervent Christians (for the record, some are Muslims, some are atheist, some have no faith position, etc.).
I was chatting away to one such person the other day about the nature of heaven. She asked me what I thought heaven was like, and as I commonly do, I first stated that non-existent was the first quality that came to mind. I agreed to put that slightly to one side, and discuss, should such a place exist, what the criteria for determining who got in might be.
In a typical vague style I said that if I were God, then I’d start by saying that all the ‘good’ people would be in and the ‘bad’ people would be out, and that since I’m clearly not God, I can leave both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as not well-defined, but something along the lines of “living a thoughtful and value-filled life, being nice to people whether you agree with them or not”.
Apparently, this is not the definition of who gets in to heaven. Anyone (of any religious belief or none) can get into heaven if they have followed God’s plan for their life. I did point out the difficulties for an atheist of knowing God’s will for my life (I imagine that non-existent beings, pretty much can’t plan things). But she insisted that I couldn’t argue against this.
This argument rests entirely on the belief that the Bible is an authoritative source for things. Whilst I have a copy of the Bible that I do in fact read occasionally, to me, it is just another book. Having a difference like this in a conversation is absolutely fine.
What is deeply frustrating is that it never really occurred to her that I might have such a different view of the Bible.
Popularity: 27% [?]
