From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Indivisible (was: Karmic slappage) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >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...
If done scornfully - "stupid idiot sheep!" - it is hypocritical. If done caringly - "they don't have the time (from working in the fields all day) to become educated on these matters, and will derive no comfort from arcane minutiae, so we must simplify and make it understandable" - it is at least arrogant, but not inherently malign.
First of all, I'm not sure if hypocrisy is inherently malign. Are you? I mean hypocrisy can exist in a specific case without it being generally known. One can be a hypocrite without actually knowing it. The minds eye doesn't always see 20/20.
However I do see your point. And I understand that the arrogance of which you speak is quite commonplace. But in the administration simplifying the 'mysteries' if you will, of God and such and such to the public, and concurrently approaching those same mysteries themselves as something that is deeply intricate, lies the very nature of hypocrisy. And it doesn't matter if it's done scornfully or arrogantly, or if one believes that hypocrisy is inherently malign. For it's still hypocritical, and begs the question of deservedness. Who is more worthy to know and contemplate the mysteries of God? Who gets to commune with the Almighty?
Now you might think that that's easy to downplay. It's not. For although it's taught that everyone can 'talk' to God through prayer, there still exists a hierarchal structure in the administration of the religion where people delve deeper into 'God' than any layperson practitioner of the faith. I would say that this in itself is hypocritical (as I said above). Especially when looking at it from the perspective of 'what the Church teaches versus what they practice'.
Of course another question remains - is a little hypocrisy perhaps needed in order to keep the machine running smoothly?
> >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.
Semantics: I'd say they'd be living a partial truth. (And of course I think that is not desirable...hence my declaration of heretic deism. <smile>)
Fair enough. I'd even go so far as to say that the partial truth bit is actually more accurate than my 'lie'. But as interesting as I find the premise of - 'many people might not want clear, unequivocal directions' - I still think that not having and/or wanting those clear unequivocal directions is a blow to the very organized structure that we're talking about here. As far as I'm concerned it's more than 'not desirable'.
> 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.
Oooh, I'll let you and Dan slug that one out! ;)
Does he hit hard? I wouldn't wanna ruin my pretty little face...
> Please note that my above statement is not intended > as an all-encompassing > look at human consciousness, but rather as a > targeted assertion....I actively maintain that God > may indeed exist. > Therefore in matters such as faith and organized > religion....I also maintain > that religious thinking, > while obviously holding back other ways of thought, > may be quite prodigious in and of itself.
Could you clarify how 'religious thinking' holds back other ways of thought?
Lets say some young bloke is abstaining from sex until he gets married. He's doing this because his faith endorses it. He's being faithful to his religion, it's 'way of thought', and to his particular god.
Another young fella is out there doing the horizontal polka with beautiful, lithe young women; and with no inhibition whatsoever, as he's simply doing what makes him (and I would hope, her) feel good. (The guy is not religious in this case...lol)
I could expand on those two cases a whole lot more, but that's not the essence of our 'conversation'. Besides, I've provided what you've asked for. And there are many, many examples to choose from. But I think you get the gist of what I meant by 'holding back other ways of thought'.
Please take note though, that I'm not arguing in favor of A or B here. That's another discussion altogether! I think I covered myself though with comments from previous postings.
> >The problem seems to be (in part) that > >politicians and their constituents _forget_ that > they > >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?
Yes, both. I think that we humans want our leaders to be 'better than most others,' else why would we follow them?
The lesser of two evils?
Again, there is an attempt to reduce the complex to the simple. Yet "Love your neighbors as yourselves" is deceptively simple - it is actually callling for not only care and understanding of others, but of oneself -- and how difficult is it to honestly dissect your own motives, actions and feelings?
<nod of agreement> It's easier said than done my dear...
> 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....Consequently, to > exclusively segregate or > endorse any one part of the whole can only take away > from the whole itself.
You snipped my examples of how criticizing one part does not mean denigrating the whole.
Oops. Could you give 'em to me again please?
What you are doing by insisting that 'the part is the whole' is not permitting any specific religion to be organic, but demanding of it perfection.
Not exactly. But I'd certainly like you to expand on that. At least more than you *did*.
There *is* no perfection in the living world, nor in any human construct: government, religion, school, computer. I am very happy with my current car overall, yet compared to my old V-8, its acceleration is sluggish; how is it inconsistent to say 'I like my car,' yet wish it had a V-8?
I'm gonna hold off on that until you expand a little.
> 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?
Please expand on the above; there _have_ been religions/belief systems with item-specificity: animism and the various pantheons (Greek, Roman, Norse, Chinese etc.)
Well, I said many *more*. Meaning that if all parts of a structured religion were not a part of the whole, then the very idea of having a structured religion seems kinda pointless. Why not have 'the god of my big toe', 'the goddess of my horses left eyeball' etc...?
OTOH, it seems to me that you are demanding that the Deity be understandable by you personally, and conform to your expectations
It would be just as well. Especially if you are correct in saying that the whole is not the sum of it's parts.
> > > 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.
> >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')
Travis, that makes no sense.
Sure it does. You disagree with me on the premise of - all parts of a structured religion are a part of the whole - correct? Well ask yourself this question - if the whole is not the sum of it's parts, then what is the point of the whole? Heck, where does the whole come from?
Recall that Christianity itself has, over the centuries, incorporated all sorts of traditions, practices and beliefs from other religions: Saturnalia -> Christmas, sacred oak -> Christmas tree, Isis/Astarte -> Mary, fertility rites -> Easter Bunny and so on.
Absolutely correct! Funny isn't it?
Yes it _is_ impossible, just as you are demanding impossible perfection [complete internal consistancy] of a human construct - an organized religion.
Not demanding as such. Expecting, yes.
-Travis
_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft� SmartScreen Technology. 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
