What we have here Deb (would you rather Debbi?), is a fundamental difference of opinion regarding some of the intricate sophistries of sentient life. But let's have some fun with that shall we? If blue only kicked it with blue then we wouldn't have purple. (Pulled that from some fruit juice ad!) I like it though. Especially since I'm always searching for new and innovative ways to insert a thoroughly diluted conceptualization into a post, and subsequently offer it up as something profound. But more on *that* later.
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Karmic slappage (was: Phone home?) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >[Huh,....I actually > >was calling _Christianity_ 'Paulanity,' not the > >actual-as-far-as-we-know-which-isn't-very teachings > >of Jesus.]
> I know. It's just that my whole spiel on > Christianity is that it's based on > the actual teachings of Jesus.
Mmmm, well, I think that's a hard row to hoe, as what we have are recollections of what some folks said was said and done, and some of those didn't make it into the 'official' Bible (like the gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene), and what did get included has been edited or slanted by those with their own agendas, and church doctrine has been essentially made up in the following centuries...
This is true, and it's something that I wouldn't argue against. However as far as I can recall, the only reason that I spouted - "It's all based on the teachings of Jesus" (paraphrase) - was to point out hypocrisy as I see it, running rampant throughout christianity, and specifically throughout catholicism. For example - you just stated that church doctrine has been essentially fabricated (see CREATED) in the ensuing centuries after the church was founded, by people (that's a key word, people) with their own agendas. Yet the catholic faithful en masse still fervently follows that doctrine in direct conflict with what the catholic church actively teaches today - which is that their belief system and ceremonial structure has it�s roots in the actual word of God, which of course comes from the teachings of Jesus, who as we all know IS God. Now I don't know about you, but that smells like hypocrisy to me. Moreover it pretty much sums up the premise of my earlier posts regarding this subject matter. My posts being quite ineffectual however due to the failure of my acquired targets to follow my lead, the failure of myself to follow my own lead (time constraints), and the failure to elaborate on my POV (the result being one of intellectual degradation in the minds of others I'm sure).
So, this all begs the question - Are you gonna follow my lead?
I should also like to add that though I made an 'absolute statement in an area in which I am at best a dilettante, and whose premise affects many many people', I make no apology whatsoever. For it is through my own innate skepticism that I reclaim or rather, attain, some sort of belief structure that holds true for me and the way I think. A belief structure where endless possibilities of endless possibilities abound, and where I - 'simply understand that I am human and prone to imperfection, and want others to acknowledge that about me and about themselves as well' - which in my own way, is an apology of sorts. Or perhaps more accurately, a defensive posture. One that serves to cover my own tracks if you will. Then again, it may just be what I believe...
That is why some people say of themselves "I'm a follower of Jesus" rather than "I'm a Christian."
I undertand all of that.
Those televangelists who exhort the faithful to pray, send in their cash, and 'by-n-bye they'll have a Cadillac too' bear little resemblance to Mother Theresa, who actually did follow in Jesus' footsteps AFAWK, by caring for the poor and downtrodden. Contrast those who point a finger and snarl, "Pervert! You're going to hell!" to Jesus' reaching out to lepers, tax collectors and adulterers - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Yet both Mother Theresa and Robert Tilton are labeled 'Christian.'
As well as that. But I hope you now see whence I come.
> But that's all the > way back in another thread > where I was attempting to point out hypocrisy as I > see it. Alas, that train > of thought in it's entirety has escaped me.
Jumped tracks on you, eh? ;)
"I'm going off the rails on a crazy train"
Well, I don't subscribe overall to the concept of karma (as I understand it, which is probably poorly), although I can see the appeal of believing that "what goes around, comes around" WRT evildoers getting their just desserts, in the next lifetime if not in this one.
Certainly. But the appeal of karma extends far beyond that.
The major problem I have with it is the corollary that if a person is in dire straits, it's their own or former self's fault; that leads to apathy, stagnation and resignation or complacency. As a social construct it's quite a stabilizing meme, but it discourages innovation and promotes a fatalistic viewpoint (IMHO). [I think the concept of Purgatory serves a similar societal function.]
That's interesting. And I agree. Consider this however - If you think that purgatory serves a societal function similar to that of karma, then what does that say about christianity in general? For purgatory is but one branch of a deep-rooted tree.
It's like I have said before - downplaying any one facet of organized religion can serve only to disparage the whole. The same goes for people who 'follow Jesus' (perfectly acceptable) as opposed to following the church. It's all intertwined!
Nor do I think that from a personal stance, "karma" serves the diseased or mentally ill; I have mentioned before the overwhelming guilt seen in family members when certain diseases strike their loved ones: "Oh, I caused this by being away from home/boasting about him/her!" etc. Certainly I do not think that I (or my parents) deserve or did anything to cause my own health problems, nor would I wish them upon anyone.
Unfortunately there is no 'unified field theory' so to speak. Yet we keep searching for answers that hold truth for ourselves do we not? It makes me wonder if we will ever be satisified with what we will eventually find; if anything.
But in terms of stated pride, arrogance and smug self-certainty, I have to concede that there _does_ frequently seem to be an appropriately-timed smackdown, at least in my case; I have friends who say the same WRT themselves. Perhaps it's nothing more than a sort of personification of the "Pride goeth before a fall" principle, or an externalization of my conscience kicking in all-too-accurately when I push the hubris envelope [ooh, what fun to use such multi-syllabic words!!].
Can't you just apply Occam's Razor and propagate COINCIDENCE?
Getting back to what I think was behind the discussion in another thread, while I don't know what Michael Moore himself intended with his 'pay in blood' comment, what I heard was the inevitability of a sort of karmic balance, or another version of 'the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.' This does not mean it is fair, desirable or to be meekly accepted, but if possible consequences of one's actions (or inactions) are not considered, the outcome may be costlier than originally thought.
My take on that relates to my opening statement. A thoroughly diluted conceptualization that is offered up in the medium of mass media as something that is profound and which serves the propagating sources' interests. Of course it may hold some element of truth. Perhaps it may even evolve into an absolute truth. Who knows? It is after all up to the individual to mine those words for what they want out of them, based on many a rationale potentially floating about in one's own mind.
If I ignore warnings from another trainer that a particular horse is dangerous to ride, and I - a competent rider trying to help out an over-mounted owner* - not only mount up, but take the horse out of an enclosed arena into unfenced land, where I proceed to ask it for a hand-gallop -- I should not be surprised that the animal bucks, bolts and does its best to unseat me; in such a struggle I could be badly hurt. It's not that I _deserve_ to have my skull cracked, but it was unwise to ride without doing preliminary groundwork. It is of course possible that I will get the horse to do as I wish with little more than bruised muscles and ego(s), but that is not the most probable outcome. It is karmic slappage that, because I did not heed professional advice and do required preliminary work, I am dumped on my butt in the mud. (It would _not_ be karmic, at least in my view, if I was unaware that the horse was a rogue and was informed that 'it was a safe trail horse.'
*In this scenario, the owner has gotten a horse with dangerous vices (kicking, biting, bucking) that s/he does not know how to correct, and needs professional assistance. To have a horse that you cannot ride because of a lack in your riding ability, and/or nervousness/vices/high spirits in the animal, is to be "over-mounted."
-Travis "over-mounted???" Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
