Lecture XXXVIII (Nr. 0507)

[502] and who are taxi drivers, although they all have their symbolic expression in the same way, let us say, concentrated in the creed of that church, nevertheless the way in which they TAKE these concrete symbols in relationship to their jobs, is already different, i.e., the immediate experience of the ultimate concern---if they all say "Jesus is the Christ"---they all do that (let us suppose so, in a special

group)---but what that means for them is colored by their personal destiny and therefore is different in each of them. And in the same way, I would say, in a community like that, where there is no such a common creed for all people, but there are different creeds and many people without a creed at all, perhaps the majority in the secular university now---there the ultimate concern is colored by very many elements: of personal character, of communal character, of a character of their functions and activities, the way in which they have encountered reality---we all have encountered it differently. Even the encounter with nature is so different. Some people really encounter the ocean only as a mass of H2O; others encountered it as an object of poetry, others as a metaphysical symbol, as the Chaos; others as the majesty of God, others,asthe [sic.] Book of Proverbs and Job [describe it], as that which is put in boundary lines by the divine Wisdom [?]. You have innumerable encounters with it. And that means the concrete symbolic expression is different. --- Another question.

QN: You say that in religious education you must distinguish at an early age between the symbolic and the literal, so that they won't be confused. Now many believe these symbolic facts are grounded in literal truths, e.g. literal miracle stories and literal bodily resurrection of Christ. Are you safe in not making an assumption that these are not literal truths, and if they are, isn't your whole system ready to fall apart?