An overview of my spiritual life... part two

[sophiaserpentia]

Few of us allow ourselves to be dragged down the slippery slope of doubt. But I've come to see doubt as a healthy thing. First of all, the way I see it, anything that is absolutely true should be able to withstand any withering scrutiny to which we can subject it. From that perspective, it is our duty to question and examine claims of spiritual truth, because so many falsehoods are passed off as truth. A religion that cannot withstand doubt is like a temple built on a crumbling foundation.

Though it may not appear so, each of us is ultimately on our own when it comes down to the question of figuring out "the big picture." Certainly, we are shaped by the culture we live in, and we are heavily influenced by the teachings of others. But this does not prevent many (or all!) of us from questioning, at some time, the things we've been taught.

When it comes to the claims of religion and culture, I take a radically subjective and doubtful perspective, which I expressed a while ago in this important entry:

God did not hand me the Bible directly. People handed me the Bible and said it was from God. People printed the Bible, people packed it into boxes, shipped it to stores, unpacked it on bookstore shelves. People translated the Bible from ancient languages into modern ones. People copied the Bible from manuscripts handed to them. At some point, there were people who sat down and wrote the very first Biblical manuscripts.

Such is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is what it means to say that someone wrote down the very first Biblical manuscripts. What were their purposes? What were their inspirations? What views of "truth" did their culture have that may differ from -- or be the same as -- ours? Did these people know that their scribblings would be handled as sacred for thousands of years?

I am not sure what it means to say that God's commandments are captured in scripture. Does that mean God dictated it word for word? Did God provide wordless inspiration and allowed the scribes to express God's thoughts "in their own words"? Did God "phone it in" and allow the scribes liberal leeway? Was God a kind of vague presence by which the scribes wrote stuff they thought was good and holy?

On top of this, there is the question of linguistic and cultural shift -- how can we account for the changes in meaning and context over the millenia since scripture was written? At what point do we stop and say that we must simply renew?

I've taken to thinking of scripture and doctrine as an 'instance' of class "divine guidance."

Comments

[agent139.livejournal.com]

First of all, the way I see it, anything that is absolutely true should be able to withstand any withering scrutiny to which we can subject it.

What do you mean by "true" here?

I don't see why truth has anything to do with it really - since the only things we can really deal with in terms of "truth" are actually "facts." (such as, the color of my laptop.)

i agree with you however that ongoing questioning is absolutely essential but i'd say it's simply because anything that remains static is dead. it can't ever really be about whether in the end the thing is any more or less valid for that questioning.

[queenofhalves]

say, have you read the book of j?

just curious.