Judy, first of all, I very much enjoy this kind of discussion so thank you. Secondly, I think I still have some issues with my Catholic upbringing and that those are coming into play here.
Yes, I realize the two languages are expressing the same principle. But as you must well know, language choice has such an effect on tone. And I think tone is what we register on the subconscious level. And the subconscious level is what affects us most strongly. So...while I agree that it's good to consider the literal and move beyond, I think it's also good to notice the feeling tone engendered in us by the literal. The redemptive wording for me connotes the idea that we have to be saved by something outside of ourselves while the unity wording suggests that we are already one with God but have not yet realized it. I think this is the fundamental reason why I embrace Eastern spirituality rather than western Catholicism. The former says that we are divine in our basic nature. I don't think Catholicism says that. I think the Church says that by nature, we are separate from God, where by nature is the key phrase. On Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:12 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> wrote: But you don't seem able to see that while the language is different, it's the same fundamental idea. Redemption for Christians is the Beatific Vision, being at one with God forever. We are not born in that state; we are defective in that respect. You weren't born in the state of full realization of your fundamental unity with the divine, so you are defective in that respect. Something is missing. Obviously in both cases it's a core defect--how could unity with the Divine not be the core quality of a human being? People take words much too literally instead of looking at the principles behind them. << Judy, once again I think it is a matter of language choice. I would say that I need to fully realize my fundamental unity with the divine, with all of creation. Rather than that I stand in need of redemption. For me, each of these wordings has its own flavor or tone. I prefer the former wording for various reasons. It may not be how the Church would say it. But I believe it is closer to how Jesus would express it. I recognize that all of us humans need to grow. What I reject is the idea that we are defective in our core, by our very nature. I guess that makes me apostate! >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:21 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: And I never said you should believe it. Why are you repeating yourself? If you don't think you stand in need of redemption, that's fine with me. << Judy, true you said Christianity but my personal experience is with Catholicism. I still think it's unhealthy to think that humans are defective by nature and I don't believe that Jesus taught that. >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:50 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: I do believe I said "Christianity," not "Catholicism," Share. I'm astonished you weren't aware that it's Christian doctrine across the board. As I said, if we weren't defective, there'd have been no need for God to send Jesus to redeem us and make us acceptable in God's sight. I'm not saying you or anybody else should believe this. It was just an aside, a reminder that this is what Christianity says. The story about the pope and the Portuguese fishing industry is apocryphal, BTW. Days of penitence, including the practice of abstaining from meat, had been established long before there was a Portuguese fishing industry important enough for a pope to be concerned about. << Judy, this is where I part company with Catholicism, the belief that people are defective at their core. I don't think this is a healthy belief and I doubt that Jesus taught it. I left the Church when they said it was no longer a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. I realized how arbitrary their rules are. Later I heard that some Pope made that rule to help the Portuguese fishing industry! >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 1:51 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Did you not read what I wrote, Share? The distinction in terms of words is arbitrary. Shame isn't inherently toxic, and guilt isn't inherently healthy. You can redefine the words all you want, but all you're saying is that one shouldn't feel that one is fundamentally wrong, bad, defective (or at least no more so than anybody else--it's a basic doctrine of Christianity, of course, that everyone is fundamentally wrong, bad, and defective; otherwise we wouldn't need redemption). << Judy, contemporary psychologists find it useful to distinguish between guilt which is healthy and shame which is toxic, where shame indicates feeling that one is fundamentally wrong, bad, defective. >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 1:31 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: It's still an arbitrary distinction, Share. Shame need not involve the sense that there's something wrong with you rather than that there was something wrong with what you did. And anyway, the sense that there's nothing wrong with you is delusionary. If there were nothing wrong with you, you wouldn't have done anything wrong in the first place. It's just a faux distinction. Psychologists don't want you to beat yourself up endlessly about what you did, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't feel shame at all, ever. My last sentence is what I mean--and what most people (including the dictionary) mean--by "shame." Judy, my distinction between shame and guilt comes from contemporary psychology and I agree with your last sentence. On Saturday, January 18, 2014 1:03 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: That's your personal definition of "shame," Share. You're making an arbitrary distinction between feeling guilt and feeling shame. My dictionary says shame is: "a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety" I'd say if you are unable or refuse to feel pain about having done something wrong, there's something wrong with you. << emptybill, I think it's appropriate to feel guilt about wrong doing and to make amends. But imo shame is toxic. It says that there's something fundamentally wrong with the person rather than that they did something wrong. >> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:42 PM, "emptybill@..." <emptybill@...> wrote: > Judy - it was a play upon and between words and meaning. You should've gotten it. And finally, I find the notion that one should never feel shame for one's mistakes contemptible. I feel shame that your mistaken notion is contemptible.
