<laughing> You know what this thread needs? An analogy or two...
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [L3] RE: Indivisible (was: Karmic slappage) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> First of all, I'm not sure if hypocrisy is > inherently malign. Are you? ....One can be a > hypocrite without actually knowing it....
I don't think so, since "insincerity" and "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess" is how my desk dictionary defines 'hypocrisy.'
One can profess a particular belief, feeling or virtue without knowing that they don't actually possess it; all the while thinking that they in fact do. I see this all the time. Hence - I'm not sure if hypocrisy is inherently malign.
One can profess beliefs that are known to others to be false, yet because of one's ignorance one is not being hypocritical, merely misinformed or deluded.
As you can see, I totally disagree with you. Of course you are correct in saying that if one professes beliefs that stem from ignorance and which are known generally to be false, then that person is misinformed and/or deluded. But it's still the very definition of hypocrisy.
Perhaps we may never agree on this. But it's where I stand nonetheless.
...Who is more worthy > to know and contemplate the > mysteries of God? Who gets to commune with the > Almighty?
...if any layperson who wants to (and can afford the time) is allowed to study these intricacies, your latter queries are answered.
Well...I was more or less reinforcing my point of view with rhetorical questions. I don't see them as wide-eyed inquiries on my part.
I do not assign malign intent to all or even most upper echelon members in simplifying 'what a difference an iota makes,'
Data (referring to a very short amount of time) - "For an android sir, that is an eternity". (First Contact)
Same premise Debbi. And I'd say that an 'iota' can potentially make a world of difference. Take transubstantiation as an example of this, though in a broader sense. Catholics believe that Christ is present during communion. That the wine is actually turned into His blood. That the bread is actually transformed into His body. Whereas other denominations hold the sacrament of the Eucharist to be little more than suggestive symbolism.
And again I would like to point out our difference of opinion regarding hypocrisy.
as I would not blame my car mechanic for saying 'your axle is too worn and needs replacing' rather than 'your CV joint lacked lubrication because the casing was cracked, and the resultant erosion of the gearing mechanism has damaged the axle beyond repair'
All I can really say is that I don't equate that analogy with what we're talking about. In the meantime, know that I do indeed see where you're coming from, but cannot follow as I wholeheartedly disagree.
> Now....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....
We disagree; although there is no question that it _is_ open to corruption/exploitation. That is why I think that if a layperson has access to whatever literature priests have, there is less likelihood of that occurring.
No doubt that's true. But Iike you said, we disagree.
<shrugs shoulders> So where do we go from here?
> Of course another question remains - is a little > hypocrisy perhaps needed in > order to keep the machine running smoothly?
Ah, the "Little White Lie" hypothesis.
<SNIP the story>
We're on the same page with this one right?
> ....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'.
But so many organizations don't have unequivocal directives; just think of how police are expected to keep the peace, protect property, defend the helpless, respect the public, nail the bad guys, comfort a lost child, AND stop crime in progress by whatever means necessary.
Fair enough. However, law enforcement and religion are two seperate entities. And you could draw upon all the similarities between the two that you want. Yet at the end of the day I'm gonna argue vehemently that they're just not the same. A human is a human. A human is not a turtle...(feel free to slap me any time<friendly laugh>)
Messiness is an unavoidable facet of our complex culture; there is always room for improvement, and a need for those who call our attention to such problems.
Yes. Absolutely. And seeing as how religion is a human construct, one should downright expect messiness. That's fine with me. I just think that if this is true, then perhaps 'religion' should drop the 'divinity' stuff altogether. Wouldn't you say? There is after all a conflict of interest of sorts, is there not?
It may seem like I'm taking a very 'black & white' approach to this. Personally, if it exists, I'd like you to enlighten me as to it's presence. Because I just don't see it. What I do see however, is a central theme that I spout, that seems to conflict in part with yours. What do you think?
> >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.... > Another young fella is out there doing the > horizontal polka with beautiful, lithe young women-
<wicked smirk> Uh, Travis, I did specify "thought," not carnal pleasures. (And does this religious young man not _think_ about sex? I seriously doubt it!)
Unless he has found some way to essentially cut off power to his penis, I doubt very much that he doesn't think about sex. But in making a conscious decision to practice abstinence, this young man is adhering to a 'way of thought' is he not?
Still, to choose a particular philosophical approach to life does negate, at least temporarily, some other approaches. Ya cain't be both a Yankees an' Dodgers fan at that game!
Exactly.
<serious> To believe in a God does not stop one from studying what the stars can tell us about time, or the organelles in eukaryote cells about the beginnings of multicellular life on Earth
"I know nothing of God, or the Devil. I have never seen a vision nor learned a secret that would damn or save my soul"
--Anne Rice/Armand/Interview With The Vampire--
All I'm saying, is what you summed up nicely above - 'to choose a particular philosophical approach to life does negate, at least temporarily, some other approaches'. But like I said before, religious thinking may be quite prodigious in and of itself.
-- although there are those who _do_ state that these endeavors are 'against God's will or wisdom.' Fanatics of all stripes tend to think poorly, uncritically, and/or narrowly;
Within the confines of religion they tend to view the world through their god as opposed to *with* their god. They cannot seem to escape the nutshell of their particular religion, and to think critically as it were. However, I would argue that if one isn't fanatical about his or her religion, then they aren't being 'true' to their religion.
I personally disagree with what I just said of course. But seeing as how each and every religion is 'the way' so to speak, then not strictly adhering to all of it's principles does absolutely nothing for the religion itself. Just as well we bring in the god of my big toe etc... (as I've said before).
my belief in our government as one of the best in the world does not stop me from criticizing the heck out of the foolishness I see within it.
Alas, Capitalism is not Catholicism.
> >....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?
Or two weevils. ;)
Russell Crowe fan?
> >You snipped my examples of how criticizing one part > >does not mean denigrating the whole.
> Oops. Could you give 'em to me again please?
See also ## below. -Frex the gov't above. -The appendix (useless AFAWK) in the body (a marvel of complexity that somehow works as well as it does). -The lack of great acceleration in my current car, compared to my old V-8.
I just can't seem to get myself to agree with your analogies.
> >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*.
## No complex system created by humans is without flaw (I wrote on this in an earlier post). Would you deny our right to correct a flaw in a hospital, like oh, getting rid of the MacDonald's downstairs and replacing it with a Subway's? [Yes, there *is* a hospital here in Denver with a McD's!!!] Yet this same hospital serves a poor constituency, who would be without healthcare otherwise, so it does much good. I can bemoan the McD's while praising the dedicated geriatric ward staff; a member of a church can likewise bemoan frex the stance on woman's ordination yet praise the work on famine relief. That member may not consider themself any less a full participant than one who accepts the no-women-in-seminary position; in my eyes neither is less a believer than the other, although one is for change, and the other not. But by what you state, that first one is being hypocritical because they want something to be different. I am no less a believer in, or supporter of, modern medicine just because I criticize a decision of a hospital admin or aspects of the pharmaceutical industry.
Again, I refuse to follow that lead. But allow me an attempt at clarification. I don't demand perfection from structured religion. As you've said and as I fully understand - it's a human construct. Instead I *expect* perfection. For although it's a human construct, it's divinely inspired. You see what I'm getting at? It's that conflict of interest that I mentioned. And perhaps the main reason why I have no time for organized worship. It just seems pointless to me. Utterly without merit. Does God (see - Creator) exist? Maybe. Maybe not. Do I have anything to lose by worshipping a particular god (an old cliche there)? Certainly! Time, for one thing...<laughing>
All I see is hypocrisy. Honestly.
A religion, like all human organizations, must adapt to the particular ground and culture in which it is planted.
Yes it must. But in doing so it must also go against what a particular god originally intended.(Just a thought)
To be static is to eventually wither and die; to deny innovation and change is to become irrelevant.
Exactly. So why would a god lay out principles to adhere to in the first place?
Why would you specify that of all human endeavors, only a religion may not...evolve?
If you wanna make it into a reacreational pastime, by all means evolve! If you wanna accurately follow your god, then follow the guidelines.
I don't mean to come off child-like in they way I'm thinking here. It's just that I can't get my head around the fundamental premise of my little 'conflict of interest'. Frankly I never could, and perhaps never will.
-Travis " sorry, that's the best I got for ya...at least for tonight" 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
