A rabbi, a priest, and an atheist walk into a bar.
The rabbi says, "I believe in God."
The priest says, "So do I."
The atheist says, "I don't."
Everybody here understands the other. Now, if you plug a Hindu or a Buddhist into this story, it doesn't work too well, but there weren't many of them around at the time of the Founding.
Sometimes, we make this stuff too obtuse.
13 comments:
Tom, you appear to have some "crazy persecution complex" ;-)
Not too ;-), Ben. Not at all, really, in fact, it was unkind.
And if you have an opinion as to what my religious beliefs are, I can guarantee your opinion is ill-informed, as I've never publicly stated them. I observe the arm's-length rule.
Per Matthew 7:6. You understand. Or perhaps someday you will. ;-[D>
Okay Tom. I agree, they all understand each other - - provided the rabbi is Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan (who some Orthodox rabbis charged atheism when he framed a non-supernaturalist theology and founded the Reconstructionist Movement), the priest is the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong (the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, whose non-theistic Christian theology I think displays some striking parallels to Rabbi Kaplan's Reconstructionist theology), and the atheist is Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine (who founded the Humanistic Movement in American Judaism).
I have to say, though, that adding a Buddhist to this mix might well produce far more in the way of agreement than confusion.
I think you illustrate my point, Eric. Thank you. When Jefferson writes:
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
We all know what he's talking about. Most of us anyway.
Matthew 7:6
.
Don't cast your pearls to the swine.
...lest they be trampled.
That verse is the foundation of a great deal of arrogant conceit.
.
Nothin personal intended to anyone at this blogsite.
.
It's just a fact of life.
Phil, the Socratic dialogue form is often attempted on the internet, but seldom works. The first problem is the time involved; the second is that unlike in Plato's day where everyone played along in the inquiry toward truth, we are not such good sports these days. Socratic dialogues depend on good faith, and good cheer.
So, I'll fill your response in as honestly as possible:
Phil, do you think it's swinish to mock another person's religious beliefs, what they hold to be true and beautiful?
---Sure. It's rude on a personal level, and it's an offense against the pluralism on which this country was founded.
Quite so.
---On the other hand, it's my American right to say what I think about anything, including religion. And like they say, silence equals acceptance, right?
Right, that's what they say. I've heard that one. So, if someone holds their religious beliefs as something to be treasured as valuable and respected as beautiful---like a pearl, you might say...
---OK, OK, I see where you're going with this. I'm not stupid, Tom.
...wouldn't it be disrespectful of one's own beliefs to cast them where they'd be trampled?
---By swine, swinish people you mean. That would be unwise on the part of the party of the first part, the one with the beliefs---the pearls---wouldn't it?
That seems logical.
---In fact, we couldn't even blame the swine, could we? Swine trample everything mindlessly, pearls and poop alike. I've been on farms. I saw them trample the poop. So the whole "pearls before swine" deal in Matthew 7:6 isn't about the swine, but about anyone unwise and disrespectful enough of his own "pearls" to expose them so carelessly.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Phil. The "arrogant conceits" you speak of should be my own ideas, which I routinely cast before the swine. Whether they are pearls or pig slop, Matthew 7:6 does not apply.
You are a tester, Tom.
.
I don't know about comparing any people to swine, Tom.
.
I've been trying to put a thought together that compares intuition to the idea of revelation. Sometimes, intuition allows us to figure things out that we cannot get by reasoning. But, I do not think the "other worldly" stuff is revealed through some supernatural channelling. So, I have a hard time buying into the idea that some people have received special knowledge about the metaphysical. Been there and done that...
So--to me--the swine stuff is utter and arrogant conceit.
.
Phil: "Sometimes, intuition allows us to figure things out that we cannot get by reasoning."
If you replace "reasoning" with "analysis" and Google on it, you can find quite a bit. An MBTI test can tell you which of those your personality favors. Other tests can tell you which your aptitude favors.
There was a day when my younger brother thought my success in life was not due to experience/education coupled with intuition and reasoned analysis, but because I was channeling ... I think he's over those illusions by now, but there do appear to be some who are not.
Phil, did I ever say anything in "our" Socratic dialogue about "special knowledge about the metaphysical?"
---No, Tom, after reviewing what you wrote carefully, I see you sure didn't. You kept it entirely on the human level, and about wisdom, with no metaphysical claims whatsover.
Well, I try, Phil. There are a lot of swine around here, you know. Be careful.
heh heh heh.
.
Like I sed, you are a tester, Tom.
.
There you are doing some thinking for me in a conversation that seems so immanent to you.
.
Maybe I was the one that brought up metaphysical?
.
I don't think a lot about comparing human beings to pigs that consume anything and everything that is thrown in front of them--they just don't spend any effort discerning one thing from another. I don't think it has to do with trampling. Perhaps I'm wrong. I think the verse has more to do with a pig's inability to be even the least bit concerned about content and meaning.
.
My thoughts about intuition, reason, and the metaphysical were more about how people come to the conclusion that they can know anything at all about any after death experience. Yet, here we have people passing ideas around in which they claim an accurate knowledge of the after life. Where in our studies of history do we come up with any experiences that give us such an ability? That's what I'm thinking in regards to the pig reference you made. How do we know when we are casting pearls to any pigs?
.
I don't think there are any pigs around here. That's why I thought that verse supports conceit in the minds of people who think they know about the unknowable.
.
.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."---Matthew 7:6 [KJV]
Post a Comment