<snippage throughout, marked by ....>
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we have here Deb (would you rather Debbi?),
That's what my dad calls me. ;)
> is a fundamental difference
> of opinion regarding some of the intricate
> sophistries of sentient life....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.
<evil grin> Not to mention multi-syllabic words!
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know. It's just that my whole spiel on
> > > Christianity is that it's based on
> > > the actual teachings of Jesus.
> >....what we have are recollections....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....However....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....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.
I think that the vast majority of the faithful have no
idea how much of what they believe (of church
doctrine) has no basis in Scripture or what Jesus said
[I'm going to dispense with the 'what he reportedly
said' bit for brevity], so no, I don't think that
they're being hypocritical. Ignorant, but not
deliberate hypocrits. Now the Robert Tiltons -- they
_are_ hypocrits of the worst sort, preying upon the
sick, lost, and lonely.
> ....My posts [on this topic] 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?
<raised eyebrow and grin that fails to be suppressed>
Since when does a Lead Mare follow a colt?
<runs away laughing>
> 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',
Flatterer!
>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...
Now if you were Kerry, the Republicans would just say
that you flip-flopped on this... ;)
>>....The major problem I have with it [karma] 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 is not a tenet of Protestant denominations, AFAIK;
I don't know what the Greek Orthodox say about it. Of
course the Charismatic concept of the 'Rapture' is
also non-scriptural AFAIK (unless it's in the
Apocrypha?). I think that it was a Roman who sneered
that 'the new sect' was a slaves' belief; certainly
there were Southern slaveowners who selected specific
teachings of Jesus to reinforce their dominance. And
we all know what Marx said.
But to toss out _all_ spiritual beliefs, influence,
and practices because of the misuse of some is equally
simplistic. Somewhere in that turbid and noisome
bathwater is a baby!
> 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!
I disagree. I can decry the war, but honor the
warriors; frex I feel that Christianity as-it-has-been
categorizes women as second-class humans, but I know
many fine people - who label themselves Christians -
that do not believe or participate in any suppression
of women.
> 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.
No, probably not. But wouldn't being certain about
everything be boring? And we *know* that the Library
does _not_ contain all useful knowledge...
> >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....Perhaps it's
> >nothing more
> >than a sort of personification of the "Pride goeth
> >before a fall" principle....
> Can't you just apply Occam's Razor and propagate
> COINCIDENCE?
And deny my human tendency to see and to seek
patterns?! Never! Not until you pry my cold, dead
neuronic dentrites off my post-synaptic fibers... ;)
> >....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
<ROTFLOL>
Debbi
Virtual Verbosity Virtuosity Maru ;)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
