The bible: objective truth?

[Dave]

Hello, my name is Dave, I am new here, and this is my first post.

I've been wondering recently about objective truth and what is the basis of such. I have grown up all my life believing in the Bible as objective truth, but now I am beginning towonder if it is rather subjective in its source, in the sense that it is the result of religious experience. If the writers of the Bible are writing out of some kind of religious experience, what is that to me? How am I to judge the truth of their experience so that it is objectively true to me?

In another vein, can I be expected to have a religious life that is based on objective truths, and not on religious experience? I have tried to turn away from religious "experiences" as untrustworthy and subjective, but now I am wondering if the Bible is not written out of subjective experience anyway.

Further, reaching back to Moses and Torah, is it the national experience of Israel that ratifies as objective the truth of the experience of the giving of the Law and that Law itself? How is this experience binding on any other people who have their own national religious experience?

Does anyone have any thought on this please, if it's even understandable?
Thanks much.
Dave

[Michael Stickles]

I think you may be making this harder for yourself than necessary by treating objective truth versus subjective experience as an exclusive dichotomy. Both "objective truth" and "subjective experience" are merely different ways of approaching reality. C.S. Lewis described this well in his "Meditation in a Tool Shed":


I was standing today in the dark tool shed. The light was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dusts floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.

Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly, the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no tool shed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

But this is only a very simple example of the difference between looking at and looking along. A young man meets a girl. The whole world looks different when he sees her. Her voice reminds him of something he has been trying to remember all his life, and ten minutes casual chat with her is more precious than all the favours that all other women in the world could grant. He is, as they say, "in love". Now comes a scientist and describes this young man's experience from the outside. For him it is all an affair of the young man's genes and a recognized biological stimulus. That is the difference between looking along the sexual impulse and looking at it.

What we are calling "objective truth" as it relates to Scripture is the attempt to look at the reality of God and Christ; "subjective experience" is the attempt to look along the reality. As Lewis continues:


... As soon as you have grasped this simple distinction, it raises a question. You get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it. Which is the 'true' or 'valid' experience? Which tells you most about the thing?

The people who look at things have had it all their own way; the people who look along things have simply been brow-beaten. It has even come to be taken for granted that the external account of a thing somehow refutes or 'debunks' the account given from inside. 'All these moral ideals which look so transcendental and beautiful from inside', says the wiseacre, 'are really only a mass of biological instincts and inherited taboos.' And no one plays the game the other way round by replying, 'If you will only step inside, the things that look to you like instincts and taboos will suddenly reveal their real and transcendental nature.'

... Having been so often deceived by looking along, are we not well advised to trust only to looking at? -- in fact to discount all these inside experiences?

Well, no. There are two fatal objections to discounting them all. And the first is this. You discount them in order to think more accurately. But you can't think at all - if you have nothing to think about. A physiologist, for example, can study pain and find out that it 'is' (whatever is means) such and such neural events. But the word pain would have no meaning for him unless he had 'been inside' by actually suffering. If he never looked along pain he simply wouldn't know what he was looking at. The very subject for his inquiries from outside exists for him only because he has, at least once, been inside.

This case is not likely to occur, because every man has felt pain. But it is perfectly easy to go on all your life giving explanations of religion, love, morality, honour, and the like, without having been inside any of them. And if you do that, you are simply playing with counters. You go explaining what a thing is without knowing what it is...

We must ... deny from the very outset the idea that looking at is, by its own nature, intrinsically truer or better than looking along. One must look both along and at everything. To look at something and along it are both true, but in particular cases, one may be more true than the other. One truth may be full of meaning while the other is not.


So, to address your question using Lewis' terminology, what you often see in the Bible is writers who had looked along transcendent reality, and are either describing what they saw, or trying to step back and look at what they had just looked along. Both views are in play. Unfortunately, talking of objective truth versus subjective experience can obscure the reality which gives the truth and the experience their meaning.

To conclude, allow me to quote a lengthy excerpt from Lewis' classic essay "Myth Became Fact":


Human intellect is incurably abstract...Yet the only realities we experience are concrete--this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma - either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste -or, more strictly, to lack one kind of knowledge because we are outside it.

... You cannot study Pleasure in the moment of the nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, not analyze the nature of humour while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? 'If only my toothache would stop, I could write another chapter about Pain.' But once it stops, what do I know about pain?

Of this tragic dilemma myth is the partial solution. In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At his moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed - the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he was suffered to lead her by the hand but, when he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that 'meaning' to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract 'meaning' at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you not true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what you are tasting turns out to be a universal principle. The moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely.

When we translate we get abstraction - or rather, dozens of abstractions. What flows into you from the myth is not truth but reality (truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is), and, therefore, every myth become the father of innumerable truths on the abstract level. Myth is the mountain whence all the different streams arise which become truths down here in the valley; in hac valle abstractionis ('In this valley of separation'). Or, if you prefer, myth is the isthmus which connects the peninsular world of thought with that vast continent we really belong to. It is not, like truth, abstract; nor is it, like direct experience, bound to the particular.

... Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the other are men's myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call "real things". Therefore, it is true, not in the sense of being a description of God (that no finite mind would take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to appear to our faculties. The "doctrines" we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Mike

[Alkateb]

The bible is one book by one editor and different contributers aiming at guiding anyone in his way based on historical facts through different forms. The aim not to show outstanding experiences, inform about historical facts, proving scientific knowledge nor showing supernatural powers.

It contains history where uses real people in real life and how they deat with real situations e.g. story of exodus is the story of everyone moving from sin land to promised land through wilderness of the world, poets produced by real people to converse with God in situations like ours, direct guidance to be used in real life to guide when our human judgement is muddled and prophesies to prove that there is a plan for the universe all what you can do about it is either you fulfill your part or to be part of it to be disposed of on completion. Now, we have a choice but not later.

Bible is read not from outside as other people of God did, but from inside as one contributing not by writing but by practicing it. Now wonder new testament starts by genelogy not to inform us about Jesus but to inform us about Our family which we joined by faith some of them are outstanding examples, some not so outstanding, some are saints all through some were sinners some chose to continue in faith and some didn't i.e. like any family

Your in Christ
Kamel Alkateb

[Dave]

Thank you for your post, Mike.

This phrase here

what you often see in the Bible is writers who had looked along transcendent reality, and are either describing what they saw, or trying to step back and look at what they had just looked along
is along the lines (no pun intended) of what I was trying to say. How or why do I take what the writers are describing as truth? How is the Bible verified as true revelation, or rather, how is the message of the Bible verified as Truth?

Two examples I've had in mind:

The revelation at Mount Sinai was a national and supernatural religious experience, obviously truthful for the Israelite people, but why is it "true" for others who were not part of the experience and who may have had a different experience of revelation or "reality?"
The Apostle John wrote (loosely) "that which we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life...we declare unto you..." How or why is St. John's preaching from his experience true for others who have not had that same experience or may even have had another kind of experience of "truth?"Thanks again.
Dave

[Michael Stickles]

I'm afraid you've got me confused.


The revelation at Mount Sinai was a national and supernatural religious experience, obviously truthful for the Israelite people, but why is it "true" for others who were not part of the experience and who may have had a different experience of revelation or "reality?"

Apparently there is a definition of "true" being used here which I am not familiar with. I tend to use "true" according to the definition:


being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false.

Therefore, to say that something is "true" for this person or group but not "true" for that person or group doesn't quite make sense to me (except in very narrow applications). Are you thinking of something specific as potentially being "true" for the Israelites but not "true" for, say, Hindus in India?

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

It's about belief, isn't it? You either believe it or you don't. We believe the Bible to be true. Others don't. The unbelief of others can't make the Bible less true. Our belief can't make the Bible true for us but not for others. The Bible is objectively true (we believe) but we can't prove it. If we could, perhaps Philip Pullman and Richard Dawkins wouldn't be atheists. You can also believe the truth in part. Muslims believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus (which is more than some Christians do!) but they reject the Crucification and Jesus as Christ Our Saviour.

[Anthony]

Two examples I've had in mind:

The revelation at Mount Sinai was a national and supernatural religious experience, obviously truthful for the Israelite people, but why is it "true" for others who were not part of the experience and who may have had a different experience of revelation or "reality?"

That sounds very much like Mohammad's approach: "That was all fine for the Jews, now here comes the revelation for the Arabs."





The Apostle John wrote (loosely) "that which we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life...we declare unto you..." How or why is St. John's preaching from his experience true for others who have not had that same experience or may even have had another kind of experience of "truth?"

The writings of St John and the other Apostles were addressed precisely to those who had not had this experience, in order to convince them that it was nonetheless true. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed."

[Andreas Moran]

The truth is not relative but absolute - even so, it's all down to belief.

[Rick H.]

The truth is not relative but absolute - even so, it's all down to belief.

As Andreas says, this is the bottom line. Some say that because we have only manuscripts and fragments (no autographs) that it all boils down to belief. I say even if we had the autographs it would still be all down to belief. In the end, this is faith based; but, again faith has its reasons.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nicolaj]

Being objective is never possible! This is the only true objective saying.

So all the rest is subjective. It always reflects in one way or another a certain personal opinion or view from the writer and by reading it we add more subjective viewpoints to it.

Nevertheless this system does not give any information about what is true and what isn't. And it doesn't add any value to any saying, any dispute, any writing, any picture and so on.

And the so-called scientific sayings which originally all should be 'objective', well they are not objective also, because all comes down to how one may look upon a subject, interpret it etc.

I believe, and as the blind I scream: Jesus, have mercy on me!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Mary]

And then, there's something that most people forget - there are different types of 'evidence'. There's the scientific one, that can be, pretty much reproduced anywhere through experiements, etc, and examine. There's mathematical stuff like negative numbers, square roots of negative numbers and all such weird logic that's real to a mathematician, but to me, they are just the result of having too much time and space in your mind.

The most forgotten one - Historical evidence, that cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, but only researched through documents and archeological findings. Every piece of historical evidence that is uncovered, is going to be interpreted through the limitations of the finder, because there's no way you can ask the people who originally used/handled those documents and items, what they did with it, and what they meant when they wrote down something. So, your historical evidences are always going to be subjective.

But even so, there are more copies of ancient documents for the Bible, than there are for any other piece of historical literature, such as the Homer and Illiad, and so forth. Also, whenever older manuscripts of scripture were found, they only proved that the newer manuscripts used for translations, were indeed the same as the old ones. Sorry, haven't kept track of my resources. But I can dig around and see if I can find some. It will just take a while, since I'm short on brain and time.

The biggest proof for the Truth of the Bible is the fact that it all fits together perfectly, even though it was written by over 40 different men, of various levels of education, spanning many generations. Get 40 men together today, to write about... say the war in Iraq, and you won't get one complete book that fits together meaningfully.

But, proof is just proof. If you don't want to believe something, you can't, even if the proof is staring you in the face, and even if it can be proved scientifically, with photographs and videos, and even equations! Just 2 yrs ago, there wasn't anything anyone could've said, to make me believe that myrrh pours out of icons, that there are miracle working icons, that miracles still happen through relics of saints, that the bodies of saints are preserved, etc, etc, etc. Like my sister, I too would've searched for a logical explaination for why the holy water in India tastes the same as the holy water in my parish, and everything else, that I now believe, without a question.

The opposite is also true. There's no amount of scientic or historical evidence that my sister can come up to prove that what I believe, is false! I'll always chalk it up to her limited human wisdom that's totally twisted and prejudiced and quite foolish, compared to the wisdom of God, which I believe I have access to, through the Church and the Fathers.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Father David Moser]

Being objective is never possible! This is the only true objective saying.

So all the rest is subjective. It always reflects in one way or another a certain personal opinion or view from the writer and by reading it we add more subjective viewpoints to it.

I'm not sure I quite come to the same conclusion here. In truth our "objective" observation and examination of the truth (from the outside in - looking at the beam as it were) can only be accurate and true when it is informed by our "subjective" experience (being within the truth - looking along the beam as it were) of the truth.

Objective evidence without subjective experience are unfailingly inaccurate because they cannot describe the whole truth - only its outer shell. Subjective experience without objective analysis likewise runs the risk of being incomplete and of lacking a true or accurate perception of what is experienced. Both objective and subjective qualities are required for a full apprehension of the truth of the matter - we must both subjectively experience God (know God) and we must objectively know about God. It is not "either/or" -it is "both/and"

Fr David Moser

[Nicolaj]

we must both subjectively experience God (know God) and we must objectively know about God.

Yes Father, but as I experience God, praise to Him, for the history he makes with me, this is as you say subjective.

To know about God, I read other sources, the Holy Bible, the Fathers and the Saints, I meet Him in the services at Church, but are these sources really objective? And if they are, then by reading, absorbing them, don't they become in that very moment subjective because, even without wanting it, I put my interpretation to it!

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Owen Jones]

The division of reality into subjects and objects is an artifact of the influence of Rene Descarte on modern thought. In Orthodoxy, truth is neither a subject nor an object, but a realm. The best brief discourse on this I have found is in the introduction to the book Nihilism by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

A realm is something that you enter into, become a part of, make your own. The idea of a spiritual realm is also embodied in the ancient idea of Kingship, where one is a subject of the King and part of His realm. In the realm, there are certain mutual duties and loyalties which people defend to the death. So when you go to war, you do so in defense of King and realm, not for some abstract idea, because you have pledged your fealty. This is why the image of Kingship plays so heavily in the development of New Testament Theology, and why Christ is depicted as having royal lineage. It is a new type of Kingship, and therefore a new understanding of the realm. The Christian realm, while represented historically through Bishops and Christian rulers, is represented mystically in the Eucharist and liturgy. It is a reality that we might describe as an in-between world, an in-between time. Which defines really what man in his essence truly is -- an in-between being, neither mortal nor immortal but in-between. Which is why there is so much emphasis in Orthodoxy on the process, if you will, of moving more and more toward heavenly reality. Salvation for an Orthodox believer is not like an on-off switch, as the Protestants proclaim, and more like a reostat. The key is what direction are we moving? Are we making progress toward our true spiritual destination?

This can lead to spirited discussions on the nature and meaning of the Incarnation. Here is where I find Lewis particularly UNhelpful, when he says the Incarnation is when myth becomes fact. As an astute historian of ancient history, he knew that there were many incarnation "myths" of a dying and rising God. Yet, as all good Christian believers must, he has to make a case for the uniqueness of the Christian Incarnation. Hence, the formula, myth becomes a fact of history. And partially due to Lewis' influence, many have adopted this formula. Many Protestants use some such formula as well, which is really a reaction to the German schools of Biblical criticism that developed in the 19th Century, that attempted to draw a distinct line in Scripture between myth created by the Church, and that which could be historically established. And because this approach tends to eliminate about 90% of the Bible as having little or nothing to do with the Kerygma, believers quite naturally balk.

But the Incarnation of God in Christ is never propounded as a mere historical fact, and actually if we look closely, it is a fact of experience, or of observation and illumination, of a very select few. Some saw the Resurrected Christ for who he was. Others saw him and did not recognize who He was. And I think this is the key to understanding (and practicing) Orthodox theological principles. The proper formula, if you will, is that the Incarnation does not take place historically per se, but in that realm in between history and timelessness, and only those who, chosen by God, to enter into that realm, are capable of seeing Christ for who He really is, then or now. How many of us, shall we say, really and truly see Christ today, in the Eucharist, in the world, in others? We don't because we lack illumination. WE have only to a minute degree, entered into His realm. And so for most of us, we observe our religious observations dutifully with humility, and allow ourselves to be guided into this realm by those whose vision has been transformed. Which is not an excuse for us not to strive with all of the ascetic virtues to transform our senses that we may also enter.

[Owen Jones]

This is the Greek word for realm: βασίλειο

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Seraphim,

Post № 14. I found your post very interesting but I don't know anything about philosophy so I can't comment intelligently. But presumably the realm - which I take to be the Kingdom - is an objective reality. Otherwise, we might be in delusion.

[Owen Jones]

Just forget about the term objective reality. The realm of the spirit is not an object.

[Michael Stickles]

This can lead to spirited discussions on the nature and meaning of the Incarnation. Here is where I find Lewis particularly UNhelpful, when he says the Incarnation is when myth becomes fact. As an astute historian of ancient history, he knew that there were many incarnation "myths" of a dying and rising God. Yet, as all good Christian believers must, he has to make a case for the uniqueness of the Christian Incarnation. Hence, the formula, myth becomes a fact of history. And partially due to Lewis' influence, many have adopted this formula. Many Protestants use some such formula as well, which is really a reaction to the German schools of Biblical criticism that developed in the 19th Century, that attempted to draw a distinct line in Scripture between myth created by the Church, and that which could be historically established. And because this approach tends to eliminate about 90% of the Bible as having little or nothing to do with the Kerygma, believers quite naturally balk.

But the Incarnation of God in Christ is never propounded as a mere historical fact, and actually if we look closely, it is a fact of experience, or of observation and illumination, of a very select few. Some saw the Resurrected Christ for who he was. Others saw him and did not recognize who He was. And I think this is the key to understanding (and practicing) Orthodox theological principles. The proper formula, if you will, is that the Incarnation does not take place historically per se, but in that realm in between history and timelessness, and only those who, chosen by God, to enter into that realm, are capable of seeing Christ for who He really is, then or now. How many of us, shall we say, really and truly see Christ today, in the Eucharist, in the world, in others? We don't because we lack illumination. WE have only to a minute degree, entered into His realm. And so for most of us, we observe our religious observations dutifully with humility, and allow ourselves to be guided into this realm by those whose vision has been transformed. Which is not an excuse for us not to strive with all of the ascetic virtues to transform our senses that we may also enter.

While I'm not sure I'm grasping all you were trying to say here, I don't think Lewis ever meant to say the Incarnation was a mere historical fact. That myth became fact, does not mean it ceased to be myth.

To go a step further, when you speak of those who "enter into that realm", I cannot help but think that these people are those who do not just receive the myth, but they participate in the myth, they live it as the center of their own being. The story is no longer outside, but inside. The degree to which one participates in the myth, is the degree to which one truly sees.

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

Just forget about the term objective reality. The realm of the spirit is not an object.

It's not an 'object' to be sure. But surely the Kingdom is real and exterior to ourselves, capable of presenting itself to our consciousness, and so self-existent? That's what I mean by objectively real. If it exists only in our own minds ('subjectively'), it might not be true.

[Owen Jones]

I believe Lewis said what he meant and meant what he said. The Incarnation is not a myth, it is a fact. He is juxtaposing myth and fact.

Our way of understanding Scripture is that the historical facts are meaningless in and of themselves. Facts have no meaning. The fact that a man died and was seen by some people after he died could just as easily be a ghost story, apart from the typological truth conveyed by the experience of a savior. Without a savee there is no savior. But it's not a matter of a knowing subject of an objective external object, anymore than an objective observer, a "knowing self", can observe Christ in the eucharist. All he sees is bread and wine.

[Owen Jones]

If there is one thing we do know, if it is one thing that Orthodoxy teaches, it is that the Kingdom is not exterior to ourselves.

This notion that if something exists in our minds it must of necessity only exist in our minds and is therefore "subjective" and unreliable is the result of a build-up of philosophical fallacies in Western thought over a period of 500 years that has filtered its way into broad public consciousness. It's similar to the way people use Freudian language these days unthinkingly.

And what of this notion of a "self-existent" thing?? I can cite any number of theological and biblical sources, but my favorite line is from Moby ****: nothing exists in itself.

The whole notion of the self really needs to be called into question. What is the "I"? It is only one of many perspectives on reality. The goal of Orthodox Christianity is to virtually eliminate the self from the equation. To kill the self. To bury the self and any notion of a self-existing "I."

When that is accomplished, to the extent possible in a fallen world, then our perspective changes and we see things as God sees them.

[Michael Stickles]

I believe Lewis said what he meant and meant what he said. The Incarnation is not a myth, it is a fact. He is juxtaposing myth and fact.

I'm afraid I don't see what the difficulty is, unless you are assuming "myth" inherently implies "not real - a fantasy". That is not how Lewis understood the term. What he said - and meant - is that the Incarnation is both myth and fact. That is not a contradiction.


Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens -- at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.

Sorry to ignore the rest of the points you made, but I'm not sure my poor brain is grasping them adequately.

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

Owen Jones wrote:
If there is one thing we do know, if it is one thing that Orthodoxy teaches, it is that the Kingdom is not exterior to ourselves.

Please see the post No. 2 of Fr David in the thread, 'The Church - the Kingdom of God?' (I don't know how to transfer a post from one thread to another - sorry.)

The Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven is the Orthodox Church, and in the age to come, the Kingdom will be consummated. The Kingdom is the Bridal Chamber; it is Christ's dominion, His Kingly rule.


The whole notion of the self really needs to be called into question. What is the "I"? It is only one of many perspectives on reality. The goal of Orthodox Christianity is to virtually eliminate the self from the equation. To kill the self. To bury the self and any notion of a self-existing "I."

'Self' I take to mean our hypostasis, our being. I don't understand this as 'a perspective on reality'. I'm sure that the elimination of the self and the killing of it is not the goal of the Orthodox Church. Surely, the goal of the Church is the transfiguration of the self. We pray, 'Thy kingdom come': that the Holy Spirit will come, and that Christ will reign in His Kingdom in the age to come. We also pray to be remembered by Christ in His Kingdom.

It is true that the Kingdom is within us in so far as it is the operation of the Holy Spirit in each of us. But we are a mystical community, the Body of Christ. That is a reality, though spiritual and 'not of this world'. One Father describes the Kingdom as a 'congregation', something we can enter and experience in fellowship with others. Or we can fail to gain entrance if we lack a wedding garment.

If you mean by 'self' the egotistical aspect of our being, then I think what I have said still applies since that aspect of our being is quenched by the Holy Spirit if we let Him - part of our transfiguration.

The Transfiguration on Tabor is a revelation of the Kingdom; it was the experience by Peter, James and John of the Uncreated Light which was revealed in a Trinitarian way. Clearly, it existed beyond them. The Kingdom is the Father's intention for all His creation, for us and the angelic host together. Which takes me back to Fr David's post.

[Rick H.]

On Equating the Kingdom of God with the Orthodox Church


Owen Jones wrote:

Please see the post No. 2 of Fr David in the thread, 'The Church - the Kingdom of God?' (I don't know how to transfer a post from one thread to another - sorry.)

The Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven is the Orthodox Church, and in the age to come, the Kingdom will be consummated. The Kingdom is the Bridal Chamber; it is Christ's dominion, His Kingly rule.








the Orthodox Church is the Kingdom of Heaven in reality - however it is not fully equivalent with the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox Church is only the visible portion of the Kingdom of Heaven in this place and time whereas the Kingdom of Heaven in its totality spans time and space and extends even into eternity and includes not only man, but also the angelic host.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

To insist that in order for something to be true, it must therefore be "objectively" true, strikes me as a kind of defensiveness in the face of the onslaught of modern Biblical criticism, by falling back on the terminology of Rene Descarte. First and foremost, it was Descarte who attempted to objectify personal existence, notably with his famous claim, "I think, therefore I am." But existence is not an objective fact. Existence is always contingent. As St. Maximos said, it is possible to relapse into a state of non-existence. To exist requires that we exist as something and for something and directed toward something (which is not a thing).

The division of reality into knowing subjects and objects of cognition represents a serious wrong turn in the history of philosophy, and one wonders why so many Christians adopt this terminology. It inevitably turns God and His Kingdom into objects of cognition. But theology does not refer to objects subject to our investigation and scrutiny. Theological terms are symbols for reality as it is experienced. The great victory of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasts is the victory for a true understanding of symbolic significance, vs. the human tendency to objectify reality. The icon had become an object of human intentionality, thus destroying its symbolic significance. The iconoclasts were enraged at this, but instead of seeking a restoration of true understanding of their significance, they went about smashing icons. The same process took place in the Latin Church much later, with the objectification of ritual into various corrupt forms with which we are all familiar. In this case, the iconoclasts essentially won the argument, by eliminating the eucharist and virtually any and all symbolic representations in worship. They have done the same with Scripture, by proclaiming, many of them, that it is the inerrant word of God as if it had been dictated to scribes. This process of objectification is, of course, utterly destructive of the life of the spirit.

So, my only appeal is to at least try to imagine something being true that does not have to be either objectively true or subjectively true. It's bad psychology, inconsistent with Orthodox (and Pauline) teaching on the nature of man. Otherwise, we are stuck with arguing with pathologists on the location of the soul in the body! A pathologist can arguably prove there is no soul, every time he conducts an autopsy.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We set a great store in our icons. I am beginning to really understand why. They have been mentioned a couple of times in this thread and rightly so. Icons portray REALITY. We don't use photographs, or so-called "realistic" depictions. We use inverse proportions and symbols to portray TRUTH in as much as we are able to do so. An icon is more "real" than a photograph. In the same way, the Bible is more true and real than an history book or a documentary movie. There is very little in this world that is really "objective". As an engineer, one of the first things I had to learn in the "real" world is that all analysis is objective, but first you have to know what the objective is...

Objective, what a funny and fun word. It has two mutually exclusive meanings

1. not influenced by personal opinions or feelings
2. a thing aimed at or sought, a goal

What could be any more influenced by personal opinions or feelings than a goal?

Oh bother, too much for this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh