-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Filtered Down Theology
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
"Filtered through?"
What makes you think there is a "filter?"
What is being "filtered through?"
What happens when something is "filtered?"
What makes you think there is a "filter?"
What is being "filtered through?"
What happens when something is "filtered?"
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Most people are influenced far more by other people than they are by mere words in a book.
Its passed through another vessel/sieve. Why write a book and not allow everyone to ready it for themselves? or why have a book and expect someone to experience it from a third person vs first person? can biases be transferred? projected?
the mind of another's experiences in space/time. Shouldn't the message be universal and timeless; if it has relevance then vs now? or now vs 5000 yrs from now? how does the follower/student grasp; what is possible within self?
it can be divested of data/information, or polluted with bias. Everyone doesn't process external information in the same way.
Last edited:
The Bible is not a book but a library, and its not made to be read by casual readers. The Torah is the focus, but causal readers try to skip the Torah and think it is 'The boring part'. Every book in that library is about that part, so casual readers get strange impressions of what the the other books are about as they leave out the central part or fail to see every other part as commentary on it. With the central part missing the only way to read the other books is to imagine fanciful purposes for them. So the book Ezekiel, for example, has been imagined to be about spaceships and nuclear missiles. I have seen people do this on this site. Casually reading it like that is not ever going to work.
Because we need to hear it in human language. And if it comes mystically, people will call it imagination.
How else is the information supposed to be communicated? Religious traditions are passed down in basically one of two ways. There are oral traditions, which were more common in historical Paganisms as many were pre-literate cultures. And there are written traditions, which are often a focus of today since we live in a mostly literate culture. Regardless of which you do, there has to be some way of conferring information from person to person. It's going to be mostly talking/speaking or writing. Gestures and body language can be an important aspect too, as can the visual arts or symbols. That's just how we communicate with each other. I'm not seeing what alternatives there are to this.
I don't see how it is at all possible to communicate another person's experiences without something changing in the telling of the story. Besides, part of the art and responsibility of a good storyteller is to tell the story in a way that resonates best with the audience. If you tell the story the same way every time, you won't reach certain people who come from different backgrounds. The meaning won't get through to them if, say, it has cultural references they don't understand or various "inside jokes" so to speak. If you want a message to be somehow universal and timeless (something I rather doubt is even possible, but let's run with it), it is the storyteller's job to make that happen.
Why do you call bias a "pollution?" Near as I can figure, there is no such thing as a lack of bias. Bias emerges from diversity, and were we to remove diversity, you and I would not be having this conversation. Bias happens from me being me and necessarily experiencing something from a different point of view than some other human, or the wind, or the trees. Why would we call that bad? Or maybe you are talking about a different kind of "bias?" As in "this particular teaching I happen to disagree with?"
oral is preferable because pythagoras, jesus, buddha, all taught orally. If you have a book, then you have a better first person account by reading it for self vs having a librarian reading and explaining it to self. a good example of this is based on the chan teacher, Lin-Chi, Jesus, and Buddha.
the alternatives are to abdicate the first person experience to someone else's interpretation or reading the books for self.
so you agree that biases; such as cultural references aren't going to convey the idea because there is not necessarily a 1 to 1 correlation. you also agree, that it would be better to study a subject for self; if one wishes to be truly proficient in that subject vs allowing someone else dictate continually what.
not everyone is going to progress at the same rate because of interest and not everyone is in it for the same reason. example masonry, some join for the altruism, others for the networking and promotion solely of self.
because there should be no bias in the idea of a truth. the truth is not a respecter of a person's culture, gender, sexuality, et al. again, it's looking at actions and not appearances. self shouldn't demonize/honor someone because of what they wear, or don't wear. it should be based solely upon their merits from actions.
Last edited:
unfortunately that is true in both directions. people in authority hold a huge sway over the less informed and abdicate the soundness of mind to those despots.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
In Judaism, the bible isn't filtered. When the Tanakh is read in synagogue, everyone has a copy of it in their laps and we follow along as it is read by a reader. If a reader makes an error in their reading, everyone is quick to point out the error and make the reader do it right. We ain't got no filters in synagogue!
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
Because before the arrival of a modern state with its vast resources, most people could not read or write, requiring people who were literate to read the texts to others? That such specializations create the possibility and reality of abuse, but please explain how exactly a pre-modern society is going to do religion, philosophy, medicine or science any other way?
Akivah
Well-Known Member
??
@Fool
I can't say I agree that oral traditions are preferable, particularly not for the reasons you gave. Different instructional strategies each have strengths and weaknesses. If anything, it makes the most sense to use multiple instructional methods and explore things from many different angles. This would include studying a subject on one's own, as well as receiving instruction from people who have walked that path before and know more about it than you do. Self-study will only take you so far. Just as going to lectures will only take you so far. A devotee of the Spirit of Learning does both, and then some.
I can't say I agree that oral traditions are preferable, particularly not for the reasons you gave. Different instructional strategies each have strengths and weaknesses. If anything, it makes the most sense to use multiple instructional methods and explore things from many different angles. This would include studying a subject on one's own, as well as receiving instruction from people who have walked that path before and know more about it than you do. Self-study will only take you so far. Just as going to lectures will only take you so far. A devotee of the Spirit of Learning does both, and then some.
if the teacher is proficient in his subject, she can immediately correct the students error. Without the teacher, then the subject is open to subjective interpretation.
this is relayed in the parable of the sower:
a person generally won't accept anything other than what they are seeking.
a person won't generally grasp what someone's offering; unless they have a desire for it.
Robert Vincelette
Member
Almost anyone can read a piece of literature but not necessarily understand it. That is why we have professional literary scholars who earn their authority and credentials to help us see things we otherwise would miss in any great work, be it Goethe, Shakespeare, Dante. The same applies to scriptural literature. But there are genuine scholars usually in the top universities who spend their lives studying and researching the cultures and contexts that produces the likes of Job or Psalms. Those who are serious about learning what these works are trying to tell us can only profit from what the scholars have to offer. But beware. There are frauds who pass themselves off as biblical and Islamic scholars who have not earned their credentials and authority and they give us market researched fundamentalism that sells better because it offers something simple that applies to their lazy minded target audience in the same way a weight loss book promises that you can lose weight in a matter of weeks without improving your diet and without exercising. "The Late Great Planet Earth," the prosperity gospel, and the law of attraction are to religious scholarship what McDonald's and Coke are to food.
TDselector
Is God an Alternative Fact?
Which came first, thoughts or the brain? The rules that govern the existence of the brain necessarily supersede thoughts of the brain. Understand this and you can understand why there cannot be a God. Click here to find our for yourself.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Thank you for this question, but the Bible doesn't indicate a personal faith filter other than you. If a priest, for example, claims to know God better than you because they've attended seminary, well, only one's personal Bible knowledge and comprehension are worthy, and the Bible says so, too.
arthra
Baha'i
For Bahá'ís there are no priests imams lamas or rabbis.. we have our own sacred writings and authorized Interpreters in Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi.