> > Well, it looks like it's settled then: MJ and the TurqoiseB > > were the real True Believers, whose religion was TM - - the > > only apostates left on the forum. It looks like nobody else > > on FFL ever considered TM to be their religion. You can't > > be apostate from something you don't believe in. Go > > figure. > > MJ: > you know, I never thought about it that way before, but I guess > back in the 70's and 80's, TM WAS my religion. > So, it looks like it's settled then: MJ and Barry both thought of TM as their religion. They both were disappointed when they realized that it's a real stretch to make a simple relaxation technique into a religion. MJ and Barry have said that TM is a religion, so they must believe that to be true. The question is: why did it take Barry fourteen years to realize that he was making TM his religion, and it took MJ only a couple of years to figure this out? Go figure.
Anything you do can be turned into a religion - L. Ron Hubbard made "Diantics" into a religion, based on the fact that people just feel better when they have someone to talk to. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Michael Jackson <mjackso...@yahoo.com>wrote: > > > you know, I never thought about it that way before, but I guess back in > the 70's and 80's, TM WAS my religion. > -------------------------------------------- > On Sun, 1/19/14, Richard Williams <pundits...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Apostasy, is a terrible thing. > To: "Richard J. Williams" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Sunday, January 19, 2014, 3:55 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Share:> What I reject is the idea that > we are defective in our core, by > > our very nature. I guess > that makes me apostate!> > Well, it looks like > it's settled then: MJ and the TurqoiseB were the real > True Believers, whose religion was TM - - the only > apostates left on the forum. It looks like nobody else on > FFL ever considered TM to be their religion. You can't > be apostate from something you don't believe in. Go > figure. > > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 > at 8:14 PM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, "authfri...@yahoo.com" > <authfri...@yahoo.com> > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
