From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Karmic slappage (was: Phone home?) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah...ok...but which would you prefer? (Deb or Debbi)
I was in a particularly silly mood yesterday, being cryptic; Debbi, please. :)
I was in a particularly frantic rush the other day, being indiscriminate; Debbi it is.
> >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....so I don't > >think that they're being hypocritical.
> Neither do I. I was actually talking about the > administration.
There probably is either hypocrisy or a serious case of 'the masses can't understand this complexity, therefore we will teach them black and white' at the highest echelons.
Is that not hypocritical by nature? Especially in conjunction with the topic at hand...
I'm not sure if it's true that so many people want clear, unequivocal directions (I've heard this argued),
Interesting, that premise. In terms of christianity however, wouldn't it be a blow to the general organized structure? Essentially speaking, faithful practitioners of a meticulously methodized system would be living a lie.
or if they simply aren't encouraged to think of things as multi-faceted, and so don't develop critical thinking well.
I'm fairly certain that by living one's life within the imposing umbra of christianity, and by doggedly dedicating oneself to it's doctrine (being any specific faith within the realm of christianity), one's own ruminative tendencies simply must be repressed on some level.
Please note that my above statement is not intended as an all-encompassing look at human consciousness, but rather as a targeted assertion. For as you may or may not know, I actively maintain that God may indeed exist. Therefore in matters such as faith and organized religion (this is a bare-bones yet very specific idea), I also maintain that religious thinking, while obviously holding back other ways of thought, may be quite prodigious in and of itself.
> What if I'm human? (as opposed to a politician). (Referring to the Kerry comment)
<serious> The problem seems to be (in part) that politicians and their constituents _forget_ that thay are merely human, living in a complex world that cannot be accurately reduced to catchy sound-bites.
Do you mean that the constituents forget that their politicians are merely human, or were you talking about the constituents themselves? (Coupled with the politicians of course)
> I'm talking about catholicism.
Oh, I was responding to the "christianity in general" phrase - IOW Purgatory is not a part of any of the Protestant denominations that I am familiar with.
It's not your fault my dear. It's the fault of the writer if a reader cannot pick through an assortment of words clearly. Unless of course the reader is shall we say, stupid. This is certainly not the case here I can assure you! Besides, you hit the nail on the head already.
So I suppose my question still stands. But only in relation to faith's that contain Purgatory <lol>, or some similar construct of 'soul cleansing'.
> Besides, if purgatory > has nothing to do with > those religions then it serves no real purpose to > bring them up in this > discussion. Unless of course I'm missing > something...
<blink> If I'm going to criticize the concept of karma, which I understand is an integral part of a religion in which I was not raised, it would be remiss of me not to note a similar construct in Christianity (even if it isn't a version which I practiced, i.e. Catholicism). I was just being evenly critical.
Please, just omit my above idiocy.
> >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!
> I'm not sure if that was a sleight towards me or > not. It can be taken either way. > Anyway, I agree with you.
Not a slam, but yes, as a criticism of those who lump all spiritual beliefs and practices together.
As far as I'm concerned, I only put into words what is.
I'm not saying that all religions are one and the same. What I am saying is that in matters of a specific religion all parts are a part of the whole. Hence the word 'parts' I suppose. Consequently, to exclusively segregate or endorse any one part of the whole can only take away from the whole itself. If this were not true then there wouldn't be any GOD as we know Him; there would also exist many more item-specific deities. How could it be otherwise?
> > > > It's like I have said before - downplaying any
> > > one facet of organized > > > religion can serve only to disparage the whole.
Please explain how, if this statement is correct, that I can say...
See above.
> > > ....It's all intertwined!
> >I disagree.
> Of course you disagree. That's the whole point. The > ultimate hypocrisy so to > speak! The only problem is that you have to adhere > to *my* viewpoint in > order to see it. And that is that all facets of a > particular religion are > interrelated with the whole. Which of course they > are.
You will have to give me better arguments than "you have to adhere to *my* viewpoint" to show that "all facets of a particular religion are interrelated with the whole."
But that IS the argument! And if it were not so then how could there even exist seperate structured religions? (the key word there is 'structured')
Frex, find another large organization, social construct or complex creation that does not have at least one admirable and at least one undesirable trait.
An impossibility; and you know it. At best it's a digression.
> Think on this however...what does that say about > organized religion and all > it's various branches, as a universal institution? > Or as singular entities?
If you could demonstrate that *no good* has come out of *any religion,* you would have proven your point.
I think not Debbi. Proving my point does not hover on the brink of me demonstrating what you ask. Furthermore, you again impose an impossibility.
I should also like to add that I'm in no way out to prove that absolutely no 'good' (that's an interesting word isn't it?) has ever come out of organized religion. On the contrary, aside from charitable work in all it's incarnations, I actively spout that organized religion is great as (if not serving any other purpose than) a moral institution. And there are also others ways in which it is 'good'.
-Travis "hypocritical once again for the sake of a point" Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
