There is more to Religion than Narratives.
Or is there not?...
Maybe comparing Narratives can make Religious and Spiritual Beliefs more understandable. And I admit more acceptable or rejectable, that´s not my intention, at all.
I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc. I do not authorize any Religious use nor interpretations of any of my texts. I really don´t know enough about Religion, you´ve been warned. The Ideas, Opinions and Beliefs are mine and mine alone, not of Alex Bunardzic except those in the Quoted text of his.
My comment to this Note by Alex Bunardzic at Alex Bunardzic, proudly Canadian, apparently, copied, just in case it Disappears at some point:
Religious people instruct us that God the Creator reveals himself to some humans (not to all humans, just to some he mysteriously chooses). What’s interesting is that, according to the religious people, God chose to reveal himself to some humans by utilizing the technology. And a very peculiar thing in that arrangement is that God prefers to use books as a technological medium to reveal himself.
Of course, books are a marvelous technological discovery. But books suffer from language barriers. Different people in different locations speak different languages. If God reveals himself by using a certain language, a barrier is immediately created between his revelation, expressed in one language, and the understanding of that revelation by people who do not speak that particular language.
Of course, languages can be translated into different languages, but we end up with many variations, many different translations that do not present a coherent picture.
And since God is omniscient and omnipotent, one cannot help but wonder: why didn’t God choose video recording or even holographic projection to reveal his instructions to his followers? Such revelations would be much less confusing, much less prone to misinterpretations or tampering.
Do religious people have an answer to this question?
[End of copy/quote]
But here is the Reference:
My comment:
My guess is they don´t, but being from the starting point God´s will and God acting in mysterious incomprehensible ways, haha!, well, I cannot claim confidently what the heck was the point in any God´s acting.
Being said, at least one God did spoke to people in a manner that was undeniable: he spoke independently to Moses and the Hebrew People, actually historically Samaritans, there is Scholarly agreement God did not spoke to Hebrews as we know today but to whom we call now Samaritans, and Ancient Ones nonetheless, but Religions evolve, when he, God, made a pact with those ancient Semitic Peoples.
And they don´t say it as clearly because it is a touchy issue… I think…
And from what I read to all of them in that relatively small group of them… as if a Mountain Spoke!, while Moses was in it!.
I might be wrong, I am lame and ignoramus, and a lazy one at that, but I read, ironically some translations of the “talk”, the pact, the Covenant, the alliance between God and those Humans left no doubt God spoke not only to Moses in private, but to his People in an undeniable manner to them. And identically so nonetheless: he said the same thing to all of them.
They compared notes afterwards of “the talk”, listening independently…
I have no trouble believing it must have happened Historically, among others because they, those ancient semitic ones, probably would not have written it as they did if itself was not that impressive. We humans being prone to mysticism and magical thinking would not have made such prominent notation of such event if it was not truly impressive.
And the context and narrative even if from translations seems to me persuasive, beyond doubt to me considering we do feel those things, or felt those things, at least from time to time, specially when facing annihilation, when facing our own mortality or extreme fear of it, at least.
It has been empirically shown from mere Narratives.
And the context does provide the framework for a group of People fearing their own Deaths, massively and communally: it was narrated, defined, as the Exodus.
As for how could I, a self considered modern thinker square such momentous event with my own times, well, God did not spoke to me, never, at all, and there is the anthropological fundamental problem: we might not be able to understand clearly enough other People, specially those long gone, regardless they left a lot of traces of who they were…
It ironically brings and puts Faith in its primacy and firstborn place.
We are mystical and religious primates as probably Neanderthals were, and likely, because of at least that, our common ancestor with them was too. But I can see not only Primates can reach independently the same, or similar enough conclusions when facing the unexplained.
Although the old Yorick Elephant was not entirely accurate as a Story, current day chimpanzees do seem to believe in some form of Spiritual transcendence.
Mere fear of losing a loved one, having the cadaver in ones hand, as some Female Chimpanzees do, can lead in humans to such extreme fear of losing a loved one, perhaps again, and to extreme fear of losing one´s life.
And extreme fear alone can provoke Near Death Experiences, leading to Mystical or Religious Belief: they are transformative experiences.
True they are not the only ones, but I think they probably are the most transformative ones, or at least, among the most ones. A first kiss, a dance, sex, embrace, holding hands, Science and Mathematics, specially Euclidean Geometry, etc., are among the other ones.
This deductive rational way of thinking is for many most intoxicating, alluring and a transformative one. Some call it having a mental orgasm…
And probably Humans, Neanderthals and Chimpanzees are not the only ones, then again, what does that mean for Spiritual Transcendence and God´s role in it I can´t say, I don´t know, I don´t think anyone can claim with surety being something predicated on Faith and not a rational nor a scientific thing.
And there is another irony present in some Religions, but not all, some are more experiential as Buddhism, but most have textual traditions.
And an irony to me not clearly appreciated is the Buddha himself, the widely acknowledged original one, most likely came up with his beliefs and teachings because he nearly died: he most likely had a near death experience narrated as the ending of his extreme ascetic practice when he nearly drowned of starvation in a river.
But comparing his, so they said, teachings with other near death experiences´ narrations leave me no doubt they, the Buddha, and those experiencers went through the same thing. Probably with different enough outcomes for Religious purposes. You know, People, everyone is, feels and perceives differently, as we reach different conclusions when facing irrational things. Things with no explanation for them. On those things there is no way, even in Principle, to reach a Rational Agreement: Logic does not apply from the Start.
—”In the Beginning there were not only words, the Verb, but disagreement… it is the Logical illogical thing going on a the bottom of it…”
Things lacking the mental orgasm and objectiveness of Deductive things. They also bring out the most Mystical we can be…
And near dead experiences probably changed their feelings and perceptions of the World into more than material, physical ways of thinking about the World, other People and other living beings.
Buddhism is a clear show of that, to me, even if, to my thinking, erroneously puts Humans at the top of the Spiritual Hierarchy. I don´t think Spiritually it is the case.
And it looks to me a similar case to other, few, religious writings I´ve read: they seem to depict, to portray near death experiences. Perhaps nothing more…
As such not needing other rational even scientific explanation than comparing modern current narratives of Near Death Experiences with Ancient Religious Texts to see their similarities. To me, I am myself a multiple near death experiencer whom until recently could not make a convincing case I went through those experiences since I was under 2yrs old, even if I behaved since a relatively small child as Adult Near Deaths Experiencers do, after such transformative experience.
Like a little Buddha, I guess, could be said of me at least back then.
And yes, I can see I am biased, but I think not unreasonably so…
And whatever biological explanations are there for those experiences probably can´t extend, can´t translate, haha!, to Spiritual Transcendence. Hence Faith…
Specially not for everyone, I was clear enough of that since I was a child. Even vivid dreamers who at the same time were near death experiencers such as myself can narrate those two things are very different, at least in the extreme emotion one feels in near death experiences that are difficult to achieve with mere lucid dreaming.
And despite some can control those experiences in the same way one does in Lucid, Vivid Dreaming.
But, for the rest, those who have never had, as far as they know, a Near Death Experience, as in meditative, contemplative Spiritual Practices, teaching, narrating, can only get oneself so far: it needs to be experienced to be accepted or rejected.
Buddhism also shows such: meditation, specially contemplative ones, those needing a blank non-believing thinking, is a Pilar of being a Buddhist or believing in Buddhism.
As praying is for other Religions. And Deduction for Mathematics.
People can relate through Sympathy, Empathy and Compassion, People can understand the gist of those Religious or Spiritual texts and Beliefs, as they can understand the Fundamentals of Deduction learning Euclidean Geometry, but I don´t think, as the Fundamental Anthropological Problems tries to elaborate, such understanding is barrier free, nor at all achievable for Everyone. Specially not Homogeneously.
But some People reach, probably, similar enough conclusions, Beliefs and Feelings, with mere considered atypical ways of meditating, such as doing Euclidean Geometry: God must be a Geometrician!. God is the Greatest Mathematician of them All!.
It happens, I´ve read…
And I can see the word God being pivotal, central to such statements and narratives, and I can see the sample bias too: they all have the God word in them. Ironically too…
Even if God is mysterious, precisely because of that, perhaps, it is used to try to explain a lot of things, apparently, otherwise unrelated, but connected, for me, by the word, the concept of: unexplained.
A lot of Mathematics don´t have an explanation beyond Deduction from beyond doubt true premises.
And extrapolating on those near death experiences, following just my narratives for example, to general widespread acceptance, Historically, is not always a Good Thing.
And as such, for me, not a part of God´s work, nor any mission he had for me, assuming he had one for everyone, I am not trying to aggrandize myself, to pass as unique, actually quite the opposite, which is not a given for me, never was: I never felt a Divine Mission nor Purpose for me.
And I can see how such Humility can lead to believing there was a Divine Mission for me and there it goes on and on and on.
I rejected and still reject all of that for me.
Hence I was always opposed to using my narratives of mine, the way they changed me for Religious Purposes: Everyone needs to make their own minds on my narratives. And probably on those of others that maybe, perhaps, are actually narratives of Near Death Experiences, and nothing more.
Ironically…
I guess even Skeptics, true hard core rabid ones can in Principle agree I have a point comparing those two sets of Narratives.
But, what do I know?: I am lame and ignoramus and a lazy one at that…
And admittedly biased, but I think not unreasonably nor irrationally so. At least I admit I am biased, so…
And one thing I think was more or less unique for me having those Near Death Experiences, sometimes too frequently for around at least 2 years when I was a late teen/young adult, hellish medication I was taking but I truly needed it, was that I never believed in God.
So, despite for other People they might have seem Hellish, in them I found deep beautiful Friendship, and the Hakunah Matata sort of everything is beautiful and connected, we are a single thing, blah blah blah, precisely because I did not believe in God. Oh!, the Irony! of having my own private Hell as a Beautiful thing. Demons and all in it, since I was a little Kid.
So my Skepticism in God´s existence made those experiences otherwise unpleasant for other People, some describe it like being, literally in Hell, really cool and beautiful ones for me: my Skepticism in God made them better for me, instead of bad for other People, ceteris paribus, all else being equal. I think.
After quite re-reading your note, several times, until then I noticed the phrase “Of course, books are a marvelous technological discovery.” [Emphasis mine]
But Books look more like an invention, a Human one nonetheless, unless one is Speaking of Books, as in Paul Erdős´ book of Mathematical Proof, perhaps predating, somehow Humanity, being there, somehow, to be read until one is worthy and ready to do so…
I guess, I understood Erdős use of “The Book” that way, and as far as I read and understood HE really did not elaborate on what he meant, but I am not sure of that either. I read so little of him beyond two/three of his Biographies and some articles here and there. As I did of Feynman and not many more People.
But for me not an unreasonable conclusion Mathematics being the ring to rule them all. I am not a fan of Lord of the Rings either.
Another irony easy to miss. Thank you for That Alex.
But then, I guess however?, it is part of the not so old debate of whether Mathematics, in toto or in part are discovered or invented. My guess is both?, but I am lazy, lame and ignoramus, what could I know of such Truly Trascendental Issues?.
And as a personal note, many times I read the word “he”, specially in he said such and such, I think of the Books of Astérix: in there Julius Caesar was notorious and ridiculed, somehow, for referring to Himself as He.
Even when asked who is He?, or Julius Caesar asking whom he we are talking about, whom he said something, he was pointed to him: “Of course he”, meaning you, Julius Caesar.
“Ah!, He”, meaning me, Julius Caesar.
An Irony not lost on me when Speaking of God: He, us, the speakers of Him…
PostScript:
And truly, Oh! God!, reading is Difficult, your note uses the word Revelation several times!:
Revelation:
1.- The act of revealing or disclosing.
2.- Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
3.- A sudden insight or idea.
The word, the concept, the Idea of Revelation might actually connect those Revelatory experiences, without Circularity of Course, but by definition.
Revel, from which Reveling is that Present Participle of, Revelation is the Act of, and Revealing the adjective of, as in something being Revealing.
Revel:
1.- To take great pleasure or delight.
2.- To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.
3.- To feast in a riotous manner; to carouse; to act the bacchanalian; to make merry.
4.- Similar: reveled
From etymonline, paraphrased, except as Quoted:
Revel comes from the French "riotous merry-making", "to feast in a noisy manner, make merry;" ´also rebeller "be disorderly, make merry; rebel, be riotous," from Latin rebellare: "to rebel"´
Rebeller in French as in Rebel from the Latin Rebellare, as they said Satan, the Devil Himself did.
And associated with pleasure, I guess with Pleasure in Rebelling, Revealing and in Revelation, in the Act of Rebelling, and therefore in Revelation, from the mere origin of the Words Revel, Rebel, Rebellare, Revealing and Revelation.
--"We all are Devilish in our Revelations, apparently without exceptions but by associations..."
In Latin, again from etymonline, paraphrased, except as Quoted, Rebellare is “to revolt”, as etymologically Revelation must be connected to. And Revolt from the Vulgar Latin Revolvitare comes from [to] turn or roll back…
In French Rebel, as Rebellen, is [to] "rise up against (a ruler, one's government, etc.)”
It does mention to make war against anything deemed oppressive, as a general use of Rebel, as a word for who does what. As in making war against the unexplained, as Science, Logic and Mathematics do, and in this case I think Etymology does too, if the unexplained felt oppressive enough and the will to make war against it was acted upon.
Rebel as an adjective mentions being stubborn, obstinate, unruly, and!, crucially Lawless. But curiously, re-bellare means making war… again…
Repeatedly bellicose.
And such irony is in there, in many religious texts and its interpretations, I guess, but it is visible without looking very far, but attentively, looking for what Revelation as a word means, and where it took its meaning from: in Devilish and/or Drunken behavior itself, for and as examples. Just two, I admit.
Even exemplary in Religious texts themselves paired with the origin of the words themselves contained in such texts from translations alone. Good or Bad examples I guess is for everyone to make their own thinking about. And perhaps, maybe, only in those using Latin to translate them, and/or the languages from which Latin actually evolved into a significant part of them, such as French and Spanish, my native language. I know a little French, but not enough.
Oddly enough English and German are not considered Romance Languages, i.e. those descending from Latin or Neo-Latin, per Wikipedia, the Vulgar, Popular or Vernacular Latin, as ironically English is in great part: A language constructed by Popular and not by dominant Scholastic/Scholarly use, as I think French and Spanish are for quite some time: more than 1 millennium. Hence its messy irregularities and relative difficulty in learning and using it, properly, assuming such thing is even possible!.
But I don´t know enough about Historiography of Religions to make such Bold claim about Exemplary, specially because I don´t know the languages in which those texts were actually written in from the beginning, in their Historical, literally, Origins: as written words, not merely spoken, as History is actually defined!.
It is just a secular layperson´s thought!: mine alone, even if someone previously, most likely, already said it and brought it up.
In the Devil being the Quintessential Rebel. But some Religious texts portray Satan as doing God´s work, being an opponent, and even being faithful to God himself, above everything else.
Although Rebel is also related to naughty, mischievous, unruly, bellicose and warrious, and I guess Feisty, joyous, riotous, intoxicated and I guess even ecstatic in making even war, etcetera. Not a Good thing by itself, but it is Etymologically connected as such, I think.
It does bring bacchanalia into my imagination, it says it right there in Revel, and Bacchanalia had ecstatic elements to them, and perhaps it was one big reason to have them: to become Ecstatic in Revelation, not as we conceive Generally of Revelation now, but it has Historical Origins as mere words and where they come from, Godly, Rebellious, unruly or riotous as it might seem. It has Rebel as a word mixed from the beginning too!.
And re-*wel- as from Proto-Indo-European might mean to turn again, even to re-revolve: to change one´s direction actually twice!. And the Proto-Indo-European *wel-, per etymonline is related to a whole lot of words:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/*wel-
And seen that way, in Revelation having a common origin with Rebel, does fit in some Religious narratives, just not in an obvious way just by reading such texts, even several times, as I exemplified in another context more than once just reading your note!.
And doubly ironic if, if, if… the Devil himself wrote some Religious texts and signed them as authored “By the Rebel [Himself]”, somehow, writings intending, as per Hypothesis not yours but mine, to spread and be accepted through Revelation, through Revolt.
—”Please I invite you to do the same: just turn back and keep walking, once or twice, there is a choice, just keep walking…”: would have been a nice PostScript, I think, to some Religious texts and their interpretations. But some people find them also Pleasant, Delightful and Merry-ous, or happy ones, as Revel also mentions as part of its definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as made available online by way of Wordnik.
Thanks again Alex, more than 40yrs later I can justify my rejection of Religious Texts as Gospel, not as in Gospel as four writings Fundamental to Christian Beliefs, but as in God´s Words. Just for me, I respect everyone else believing, appreciating, claiming and feeling otherwise. I ask you to do the same for me, be Generously Reciprocal if you believe and feel otherwise.
Gospel as in Good Stories and/or Good Messages losing an O to become God´s Stories or Messages, as again, paraphrased, etymonline describes.
And in the Spirit of Full Disclosure: I am also biased on this PostScript of mine, not the Devil´s one, really how could it be such?, because I experienced Ecstasy from Romance, Love, Sex, Science and Mathematics, but not from Religion nor Drunkenness. And I have written about it in other of my Posts, perhaps not that clearly, I admit.
Maybe I am not Ancient Greek nor Ancient Roman enough to find Ecstasy in Drunkenness, maybe I was born way, way after my time. And because of that I cannot relate to that part of the Dionysiacas, as Festivals of Dionysius not as an Epic Poem, and with the Bacchanalias. Human after all, and I can relate to some part of them as I translate their meaning just for me, despite I am not a teetotaler…
Thanks.
Federico Soto del Alba.