My wife Heather is a fiber artist. She creates quilts, wall-hangings and even three-dimensional structures based on Jewish texts and social justice themes. And for the last two years, she has been going to homeless shelters through New York City to talk to men, women and children, in order to turn their stories into a piece she is calling "Temporary Shelter." It's based on a sukkah, the temporary hut we build each fall on Sukkot, and evokes the Israelites' wandering in the desert, the time when our ancestors were homeless.
"Temporary Shelter" will be traveling to different churches and synagogues throughout the City in November and December, but there was one church that had a rather unique idea. The Church of St. Francis Xavier in Chelsea wanted to host it, but they weren't sure they'd be able to because of logistical reasons.
"At first there was some concern that your piece would be too big with all the Christmas decorations and such," said Cassandra Agredo, who directs Xavier Mission. "Then someone suggested that instead of a stable, we could use your piece as the crèche for Jesus. After all, Jesus was born a homeless baby."
Heather didn't quite know how to respond to that offer.
So we talked about it. And the more we talked about it, the more we realized that this idea was a pretty cool idea -- this Christian church would be trying to sanctify the stories of predominantly Christian homeless New Yorkers by linking their stories to Christianity's most sacred story, the birth of their Savior. But they would be doing it through a Jewish symbol made by a Jewish woman, who was making this piece because of her commitment to her Jewish values. And we realized that this was a story about religion at its most nuanced and at its most complex in 21st century America.
Because for far too long, and even today, far too frequently, religion is far too simplistic. Often, religion is about trying to convince people that "my way is the only way." But here, the church wasn't looking to convert Heather to Christianity, and Heather wasn't looking to have the church become Jewish. And yet at the same time, no one was moving in the other direction and simply proclaiming that "we all believe the same thing." No, Heather was using very specifically Jewish language with her sukkah, and the church was using very specifically Christian language with its crèche. So it's equally important to recognize that the church wasn't watering down its Christianity, and Heather wasn't watering down her Judaism. Miraculously, both the church and Heather were able to demonstrate both openness to the other and deep devotion to themselves.
How did that happen? I think it's because everyone realized that in 21st century America, for religion to work, religion cannot be an end unto itself. Instead, religion has to be a means to an end.
We don't need to look far to see the problems of viewing religion as an end unto itself. At its very worst, religion tells people that if others don't share our belief system, then they don't deserve the most basic human rights, including their own lives. Nearly a thousand years ago, that is the ideology that fueled the Crusades. Ten years ago, it led 19 people to hijack four airplanes. And even earlier this month, it caused a group of people to burn down a mosque in Northern Israel. But even when religion doesn't lead to violence, we still find stories here in the United States about the problems it creates. We hear about how religion leads people to reject the science of evolution and climate change, how it excludes and denigrates gays and lesbians, and how it fosters hubris and arrogance when people say "I know what God wants." So as we hear so much about the worst of religion, we naturally ask, why would anyone want to become religious?
And the answer is, we wouldn't. We deeply prize openness and acceptance, so we understandably and legitimately recoil against someone trying to convince us to change our belief system. We fight against the sense of superiority of "my way is the best way," let alone "my way is the only way." And we decry the violence that religion so easily fuels. So when we see all the evil that is done in the name of religion, we naturally want no part of it. But the truth is, the problem isn't with religion per se. The problem is with seeing religion as an end unto itself.
In fact, that's what creates such tension for those of us who identify as "religiously liberal," and I have certainly experienced this tension in the liberal Jewish community. On the one hand, we believe that the goal of religion is to make our world more just and our selves more whole. But at the same time, we want our children to have a strong sense of Jewish identity and strong Jewish values. And so in a world with more choices than ever before and more diversity than ever before, it's hard to hold both of those ideas at the same time. How do we act as both a universalist and a particularist?
Indeed, that's a major reason why so many people in the under-40 demographic are asking the very hard question, "Why should I be Jewish?" They see all the evil that has been done in the name of religion, and so religion -- including Judaism -- is simply not compelling to them. But it's because they are seeing Judaism presented as end unto itself.
So, at least when it comes to Judaism, I would suggest we focus less on the questions of what it means to "be Jewish" or to "be religious." After all, how are we determining what it means to "be Jewish" or to "be religious"? Who is deciding the answers to those questions? What's the metric we are using to gauge if we're being successful or not?
Instead, I would suggest we focus more on the question, "How can Judaism help us to become better people and to create a better world?" In short, we should be aiming to see Judaism not as an end unto itself, but as a means to an end.
And there are two analogies that I like. First, we can think of Judaism as a language to articulate our values, and second, we can view it as a lens through which we perceive the world.
Let's start with language. Language is obviously designed to help us communicate, and there are certain similarities across all languages: nouns and verbs, certain ways that words can and can't be put together into sentences, and even a limited number of sounds that the human larynx can produce. But no one speaks "language" -- people speak English or Hebrew or Chinese or French or Swahili. Each of these languages has its own structure, its own grammar, its own way of talking about the world. And so while there are certain universal rules that undergird every human language, how those rules transform themselves into particular languages can vary quite widely.
Similarly, there are certain universal values that undergird human society. Our most basic values -- respect, empathy, fairness -- aren't really "religious" values at all. They are human values. That's why some formulation of the Golden Rule has been expressed in almost every time and every place in human history. So what Judaism gives is us a particular language to talk about those values.
Harvard professor Howard Gardner talks about the difference between "neighborly morality," which every society is based on, and "the ethics of roles," which talks about the specific responsibilities we have as family members, as friends and as citizens ("Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed," p. 82-87). "Love your neighbor as yourself" is great, but it's far too broad to apply to the all the complex ethical dilemmas we face. When we need to ask how we respond when someone wrongs us, or are wondering what the financial and legal responsibilities employers have to their employees, we need more than just "be fair" or "think about others." We need to go in depth on those questions, to explore a variety of sources and responses, and then to create an answer that works for us. Judaism gives us particular ways to try to address those questions. Because in the same way no one speaks "language," no one can live "morality." We need specific approaches to talk about these ethical questions in order to try to answer them.
The second analogy for Judaism as a means is to give us is a way to look at the world through a particular lens. After all, what we see, and how we interpret what we see, are what we respond to in this world.
There's a story about a 4-year-old boy who was obsessed with cement mixers, fire engines and all kinds of construction equipment. And one day, his uncle took him to a homecoming parade. There were football players, cheerleaders, the school band, even fireworks. But all the boy saw were the floats, led by big 4x4s. Afterwards, his uncle asked him what he thought about the parade. "I loved it!" the boy exclaimed. "That was the best truck parade I've been to!" (based on Stone, et al., "Difficult Conversations," p. 31).
So yes, there are facts in this world that we cannot change. But we determine what facts we pay attention to, and we determine how we interpret them.
And Judaism leads us to see the world in particular ways. We are commanded to seek out blessings to celebrate. We are taught that our world is in need of repair and that we can do something about fixing it. We are told that every human being is to be viewed as having been created in the Divine Image, and is therefore worthy of infinite dignity. And we live our Jewish communal experiences the twin lenses of the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai, which as Rabbi Elliot Dorff notes, "permeate Jewish liturgy and holidays." (Dorff, "To Do the Right and the Good," p. 4) And as inheritors of not only biblical but rabbinic tradition, we are to challenge, to question, to ask, "How do we know this?" So there is a particularly Jewish lens through which we see the world.
But what's so powerful about viewing Judaism in this way -- as a language and as a worldview -- is that it doesn't preclude someone else from having a different language and a different worldview. When religion is a end unto itself, it's a zero-sum game: "I'm right, you're wrong." But when religion is a means and not an end, we can honor the fact that many different methods can lead us to the same end: to a world of justice, compassion and peace. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baha'i, none of the above -- they can all help us find meaning in our lives and help us build a better world.
And yet as we keep that vision in our mind's eye, we also need to remember that we need a specific language and a particular worldview in order to help us get there. Writer Cynthia Ozick once taught that "a shofar has a broad end and a narrow end. If you blow in the broad end, you get nothing. If you blow in the narrow end, you get a sound everyone can hear." (Wolpe, "Floating Takes Faith," p. 17)
I've told the story about Heather's sukkah potentially becoming a crèche to many people, and one of them was Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, the co-president of Clal, a national Jewish think tank that aims to foster religious pluralism. He shared with me that the message he got was that both Heather and the church were focused on the same goal: telling the story's of New York's homeless population. But the other piece we need to remember, he told me, was that the church was no less Christian for using a sukkah, and Heather was no less Jewish for making a crèche. And perhaps because he, too, doesn't believe that religion is an end unto itself, he wrote a book entitled "You Don't Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism." And in it, he reminds us that:
[r]eligion captures the very best and very worst of who we are, and to see only the best or the worst of religion is a dangerous error. If you see only the good, you become an apologist and take no responsibility for the incredible violence that religion is so capable of unleashing. If you see only the bad in religion, then you miss all the biggest questions, the most profound longings, the deepest fears and the greatest aspirations that define us. When faith is working right it can be profound, inspiring and a great force for positive change in the world, and it can help us lead more giving, productive, and fulfilling lives. (Hirschfield, 9)
The question isn't "how religious" we are. The question is how we use religion to make ourselves and our world just a little bit better. So if we can see religion as a means, but not an end, then we can realize that someone else doesn't have to be wrong for us to be right.
Indeed, we are all on a journey, all of us hoping to become a little better tomorrow than we were today, and making a world a little more whole tomorrow than it was today. Or, in the language of Judaism, we are all striving for tikkun hanefesh, the repair of our souls, and tikkun ha'olam, the repair of our world. But we have to remember that there are many paths to that same destination, and that others' journeys are not our own. And yet at the same time, we also need our own path that we can embrace.
So let us find our specific language to articulate our values. Let us see the world through our particular lens. And most of all, let us create religion is at its best, when the values of openness and devotion don't contradict each, but instead, bring out the best in each other.
Follow Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiMitelman
Religious pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pluralism Project at Harvard University
Religious Diversity (Pluralism) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Its an extremely alluring and seductive idea, this wishful thinking to smooth out all the inconvenient bumps in human religion, when it is an undeniable anthropological fact that religious groups actually rely on mechanisms of exclusion, on maintaining differences...and the hostilities they generate...to cohere and perpetuate themselves, and rightly so!!
Because none of this would be necessary, if it were not for the fact that religions IS an end in itself.
Can anyone prove to me that Atheism is not itself a religion, or those who are so drawn to the religious idolization of evolutionary processes? Evolution is a kind of God, worshiped by devotees in the millions, after all!
So isn't Atheism's aggressive evangelism to drive the religion of Christianity off the face of the earth, an END IN ITSELF?
Be specific.
This encapsulates the fatal flaw of religion and beLIEf in general. You cannot hope to secure infinite dignity for humanity when it must first be reserved for the divinity itself. When humanity does not come first, when human beings are not absolute top priority, a horrendous wrong is being committed.
Your forefathers such as David, Solomon and other faithful ones did not have your point of view. When Baal (pagan) worship threatened to overtake the Israelites, many of your forefathers fought the scourge of false religion off. Numbers 25: 6-11 detail how Phinehas acted to keep the worship to God pure. If alien residents were to be part of the Nation of Israel they had to leave off their pagan worship to be accepted by the true God. There was to be no mingling or accepting of any other worship.
As Christians we are to pursue peace but not at any cost. James 3:17 states that the wisdom from above is FIRST of all chaste, then peaceable. Being peaceable is secondary to chasteness, that is, upholding God’s clean moral standards and meeting HIS righteous requirements. Since many religions are not upholding the truth of the Holy Scriptures, there can be no true peace only toleration of each other which evaporates when tested as evidenced in the religious violence we witness up to this very day.
Your examples about Biblical era paganism have no relevance to the modern world. Those practices, if the Bible is to be believed, were a problem only because they threatened Israelite society.
The Rabbi is speaking in terms of Universalism and definitely not the teachings of the Tanak which of course would include the Prophets, as Rabbinical Judaism is really the thinking of Maimonides who turned what was Biblical Judaism into an Aristotelian religion.
In his "Platonic" views, he subsumes the original meaning of RELIGIO, which in the Middle ages was one of the VIRTUES: justice was giving one's parents, elders and authorities their due, and religion was giving God God's due. And you cannot even use the word religion without becoming profoundly aware of being a creature. Because that is the duty which lies behind the virtue: to worship the Creature God Who made you.
On this account, there are two ways in which people may fail to be religious: the may fail by treating God as a creature, as much of Paganism does ( as Dawkins does, as some ficticious feature of the world), or they may fail to be religious, by treating some fact or feature of the world as God: by setting their hearts on, bowing down before, worshiping themselves, their country, their money, sex, or "reason".
Jesus is the appointed Prince of Peace for the universe.
If they are true, then living according to those normative claims quite literally IS the ultimate end. If the claims made by religion 'A' are true, to include claims about how we ought to live, then living according to those particular claims quite literally constitute everything relevant.
If they are not true, then the pursuit is quite frivolous, is it not? It returns us nonetheless to the question; which set of religions claims is the correct one? There can be only one (including the compelling possibility that none of them are true at all). Is subscription to one among a set of unjustified, mutually exclusive claims really the best way to achieve some kind of human solidarity? If that is our goal, I submit that there are far better and less inconsistent means.
If the metaphysical points of difference don't matter that much, and religion should instead be a means to make a better world, doesn't that make it. . . a mere human tendency and tool rather than some kind of cosmic truth? That's an admission I'd be surprised to hear stated more directly.
This 'I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay' thing is all good and fun; but let's not forget that millions of lives have been needlessly lost over these points of distinction between differing fantasies.
I'm not suggesting that constructed ideas can't be useful; indeed, the concept of a country is an excellent example. A country, by nature, does not typically make any bold claims about the nature of the universe that must be had without evidence. It simply makes political claims to territory, legal claims regarding the rights of its citizens, often times ethical claims, et cetera. These may be justified or otherwise; but they remain tangible.
An ideology that calls itself a religion makes EXACTLY such bold, unjustified claims; the existence of a deity or deities, existence of souls, truth by revelation, the occurrence of miracles, promises of afterlives, et cetera. There may have been a time where religion was useful to our ancestors as a constructed idea; indeed, I doubt it would exist at all if there had not been such a time. But that time is well past.
Is it not possible for all of them to be partly right? Or is a condition of conflict obligatory?
"If the metaphysical points of difference don't matter that much, and religion should instead be a means to make a better world, doesn't that make it. . . a mere human tendency and tool rather than some kind of cosmic truth?"
Human 'tendency' seems to be more the 'kill them and take their stuff' kinda thing, sadly. A religious impulse to make things better for everyone is a rather radical act, and a sign of some chance for social evolution. If nothing else about the belief were true, that might be enough to justify the practice by itself.
In my opinion, metaphysical points of difference are of much less importance, compared to ethical points of difference. Ethical practice has an immediate and observable effect on the real world. Metaphysical beliefs or conjectures have an effect, but much less direct. And they are unprovable, while we walk the earth.
Religion is a mix of many different things. But no matter how you look at it, it isn't frivolous. Nothing that people die for, or because of, is frivolous.
Depends on the nature of the claims made. If we take two religions which both insisted that their only literal tenet was to 'be nice to other people,' and the rest was just fluff in their holy books, I could see them both being partly right. But those aren't the kinds of claims religions make, historically; and I'd be more inclined to call them philosophies than religions. Religions minus metaphysical claims equal philosophical positions.
Can they all be partially right, if we strip them down to their central ethical tenets? Sure, in principle, I suppose. But I challenge you to go to a serious Christian, and ask them how they'd feel about tossing out their heavenly reward, miracles, or their blood sacrifice; or a Muslim, and ask them to toss out all the murder, monotheism and Mohamed nonsense in their book. I believe the term invented for it is 'blasphemy;' at minimum, they won't be very happy with you.
"Nothing that people die for, or because of, is frivolous."
That's a pleasant thought, but I'm afraid it's wishful. Further, you cited an example of exactly that in your own post: if a human tendency seems to be to 'kill them and take their stuff', does that not constitute dying for or because of a frivolous end?
that is a novel idea.
has religion ever been open to anyone's beliefs but their own??????
nothing defines paradigm paralysis best than religious beliefs. political beliefs a close second.
Yep, just keep trying with that one. It ranks up there with guns don't kill people, and the trickle down economy for validity.
I agree that the "means/ends" binary can be distorted. Unless I missed something in your statement, however, it would seem that nothing could be safely considered an end in itself. If that is so, then is it not also true that nothing could be considered a means, either? That is, for the means/ends formula there must be something to demonstrate what it is to be an end in itself. Maybe human beings are to be treated as an end in ourselves? And not a means to some other end? I believe that to be the essence of "All men are created equal."
Further, the Bible appears to suggest that living “morality” is not a function of deeper intellectual exploration but, rather, of restoration of the missing relationship with and leadership by God. An apparently reasonable theory, apparently based upon these apparently Biblical suggestions, appears to be that intellectual exploration, at best, ultimately brings humanity face-to-face with the limitations of human knowledge and “moral” discernment and of humanity’s dependence upon the direct, individual leadership of God.
I humbly and respectfully welcome your thoughts.
Perhaps I misunderstand your intended query. However, the Bible appears to suggest that ultimate evaluation of the status of God’s leadership of the individual is the sole purview of God. The personal recollection of the author of this comment appears to vaguely suggest that the Bible appears to both suggest and illustrate that the individual’s responsibility is to seek relationship with God, perhaps, as intensely as the deer (“hart”, apparently, in the King James Version) panteth after water, or as Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27 appear to suggest, with all of one’s heart (apparently, no pun intended, here), soul, mind and strength.
Deuteronomy 4:29-31, Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10, and Hebrews 10:16 appear to suggest, regarding Israel, that God would put and “write” his laws in the hearts and minds of the people. An apparently possible suggestion appears to be that Israel’s blessing was based upon relationship with leadership by God, rather than on any other premise. An apparently possible suggestion appears to be that God might be willing to do the same for any individual who loves God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.
I welcome your thoughts.
"I never take a position" he says, "this way I avoid exposing my secrets and what a rather horrible person I am."
Further, and similarly humbly, respectfully and gently, I submit that the Bible appears to suggest that “Our most basic values -- respect, empathy, fairness -- aren't really ‘religious’ values at all”, as the article appears to suggest. However, the Bible also appears to strongly suggest that neither are they “human values”. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that those values are “God’s values”, derived from humanity’s relationship with and leadership by God. This apparently reasonable theory appears to be supported by reports that a certain portion of humanity does not consider respect, empathy and fairness to be basic human values. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently resulting and reasonable theory that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that wide-spread adherence to some portion of God’s standard appears to suggest that God, apparently Biblically-suggested to be the creator of humankind, is the source of such adherence, rather than humanity.
I humbly and respectfully submit the following apparently reasonable theory. The apparent Sophronia Adrian issue raised might reasonably be interpreted as being primarily a issue of semantics. However, the underlying phenomena (or theories thereof) appear to warrant clarification.
The Bible appears to strongly suggest that human perspective needs to retain the perspective that God is the source of standard, including that of human standard. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God might provide a range of varied, yet acceptable, compliance options to God’s standard. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to strongly suggest that establishment of any such range is solely the purview of God.
Regarding the apparent Sophronia Adrian semantic phrasing, referring to God’s standard (for values to be implemented by humans) as “human values” might be misinterpreted as referring to values developed, wholly or in part, by humans. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that there might exist no greater distinction (regarding values) that needs to be drawn than between those two potential perspectives regarding the term “human values”. Consequently, in case of potential confusion, the term “God’s values” appears to be somewhat reasonably recommendable.
A reasonable theory appears to be that God’s values might be “referred to” by some as “human values” and/or “religious values”. However, the effect of such reference, beyond that of semantic variety, appears to be Biblically-suggested to be none. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that use of the phrases “becomes human values” and “becomes religious values” rather than “referred to as human values and/or religious values” might result in the apparently potential misunderstanding that change of some sort might have occurred in the nature of those standards, including, but not limited to, source, content, and applicability.
Regarding the “initiation” point of “the restoration of individual human relationship with and leadership by God”, an apparently reasonable theory appears to be that care might also well be taken to avoid the potential misunderstanding that humanity is the source of said human restoration of relationship with and leadership by God. The human individual might be considered to freely “initiate” said individual’s relationship- and leadership-restoring approach to God. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest the apparently wider-scoped perspective that the individual is truly “responding” to God’s “initial” overtures toward individuals of humanity since Adam and Eve.
I welcome your thoughts.
Additionally, the additional apparently related questions regarding the source of what it means to be Jewish appear to suggest the possibility of mislaid focus on relationship with humanity and tradition rather than individual relationship with and leadership by God. The Bible appears to suggest that such definitions are the purview God.
Similarly, and I tread especially humbly, respectfully and gently here; the Old Testament appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God called for strong Jewish identity and strong adherence to Jewish values in order to preclude deterioration of individual relationship with and leadership by God. Treading doubly humbly, respectfully and gently, I submit that the Old Testament appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that, despite God’s apparently landmark relationship with Abraham and Abraham’s lineage, God appears not to have made Abraham or Abraham’s lineage intrinsically a point of focus other than with regard to typical human appreciation of one’s community. In Exodus 33:3, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as describing God as making this clear. The article’s apparent related questioning of the purpose of being Jewish appears to represent a bringing of this issue to the fore.
However, I respectfully query whether or not a strong community/social identity is still necessary for any community or culture to function in relation to other communities or cultures? However, it perhapsis reasonable to consider that this identification within the community is mirrored from the affinity and love we have first within our family and then extends outwards to community.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent was to establish a strong relationship with Abraham’s lineage and to distinguish them among other people (Genesis 12:2,3; Genesis 17:1-9; Exodus 6:7).
Nonetheless, the Bible appears to suggest that this distinction was not a function of being a descendant of Abraham but of the intimacy of their relationship with God. Exodus 33:3 appears to suggest that, when the people increasingly became subject to their “distorted perspectives” and regularly violated the intimacy of their relationship with God, God clarified that their Abrahamic lineage did not suggest God’s unconditional blessing.
Based upon this, therefore, the Bible, appears to suggest a balance between (a) their unique blessing and (b) the source and basis of their blessing. The Bible appears to suggest (a) that God chose to establish with Abraham’s lineage a special relationship, (b) that the source of their blessing was God and not Abraham or their lineage from Abraham, and (c) that the basis for their blessing was their relationship with and leadership by God. Consequently, this balance appears to suggest that being of the lineage of Abraham was not considered by God to be an end or goal unto itself. The Bible, therefore, appears to suggest that individual relationship with and leadership by God was and is that goal.
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that, at least in this context, human “need” appears to be reasonably suggested to be that which God establishes as a human requirement. If God has not established it as a human requirement, then humanity neither individually nor collectively needs it. Such phenomenon might be acceptable by God and even intended by God to be optionally implemented by humanity. But such optional human implementation appears to be reasonably considered to be distinct from humanly needed thought and behavior.
Consequently, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that the only needed identity is that of relationship with and leadership by God. The Bible appears to suggest, however, that such identity is evaluated by God at the individual level. Any other basis for identity, if at all approved by God, appears to be Biblically-suggested to be purely optional.
Consequently, if you and yours eat your apples with the stems facing toward your left, if God approves, enjoy. Apparently, relating to those whose stems face the right, the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that there should be naught but love in one’s heart.
I welcome your thoughts.
Thus God became their Father and rightful Repurchaser, the one who had the legal right to protect and care for any of the descendants from Abraham that came down through his line such as Isaac, Jacob, Judah, etc. Deuteronomy 7:6 makes it quite clear that the nation of Israel belonged exclusively to God and no other nation. “For you are a holy people to God. It is you God has chosen to become his people, a special property, out of all the peoples that are on the surface of the ground.”
The Nation of Isarel was always God’s focus because He was their Father. Although they proved unfaithful, the Abrahamic Covenant is “a covenant to time indefinite.” The terms of the covenant require that it extend until the destruction of all God’s enemies and the blessing of the families of the earth have been accomplished. Genesis 17:7 and 1Corinthians 15:23-26.
Without claiming authoritative understanding, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that the goal of religion appears to not be “to make the world more just and our selves more whole”. Rather the Bible appears to suggest that the goal of religion is the voluntary, individual restoration and strengthening of individual relationship with and leadership by God. The Bible appears to suggest that solely such individual relationship with and leadership by God would result in a more just world and a more whole individual.
I humbly and respectfully submit that I claim no authoritative knowledge regarding the nature of restoration of the individual’s relationship to God. However, the following apparently reasonable perspective appears to be sharable.
The apparent Sophronia Adrian comment appears to suggest that “individual relationship and restoration of the individual to God might be intended to be the restoration of "self" which would mean wholeness in an individual”. I humbly and respectfully submit that this apparently-suggested phenomenon appears to be reasonably considered to describe humanity as self-sourcing. To clarify, “restoration of self” appears to suggest an existing standard to which self is to be restored. The nature and source of that standard appear to merit clarification.
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the source of humanity and of the moral standard to which individual humanity is to be restored. The Bible appears to suggest that the extent to which humanity is in need of “repair” or restoration is, primarily, the extent to which humanity’s relationship with God is need of repair and restoration. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that neither humanity nor a human standard exists by any means other than by God.
I humbly and respectfully submit that “loving self”, defined as “self-acceptance in all forms” appears to not be the macroscopically-perceived Biblical suggestion. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider all manifestations of humanity; whether thought behavior, physical behavior or any other manifestation; to be acceptable.
I further humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that distorted human discernment results from faulty relationship with God. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting and illustrating that such faulty human relationship with God would distort (a) individual perspective regarding self (Adam and Eve’s shame regarding their nakedness), (b) individual perspective regarding others (Cain’s envy regarding his brother Abel, based upon God’s acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and God’s rejection of Cain’s), and, (c) individual perspective regarding others based on perspective regarding self (perhaps, Cain’s assumption that everyone would want to kill Cain because of Cain’s murder of Abel).