> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snippage throughout>
> > > >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...
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. Of course, I think that some
_were_ scornful, and the latter position is
denigratingly paternalistic. [Yet I must say that
simplifying explanations to the poorly-educated is
something I have done myself: using an analogy such as
'when you have too much sugar in the blood - diabetes
- it's kind of like the blood cells get too sticky -
like syrup - and you have to cut down on the
stickiness by using medicine, exercise and a special
diet...{actual analogy much longer and involved, to
tie in how 'blood stickiness' can cause blindness,
heart attacks and kidney failure etc.}]
> >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>)
> >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.
Oooh, I'll let you and Dan slug that one out! ;)
> 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?
> >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? 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?
> 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. 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. 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? Why can't a Methodist say 'I like my religion,
yet wish we went forward to the altar instead of
staying in our seats at Communion?' [Apologies if I'm
way off here- that's what they did at the service I
attended. Maybe that was only at that particular
church.]
> 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.) OTOH, it seems to me that you
are demanding that the Deity be understandable by you
personally, and conform to your expectations...good
luck! (And remember that my _horse_ is frequently
inscrutable, and may not give a carrot what I want! ;}
)
> > > 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. 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. Not one of those facets is
central to the tenet that 'Jesus is Lord and died for
our salvation; He rose to heaven and so shall we if we
but believe.' The atom is not indivisible.
> >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.
Yes it _is_ impossible, just as you are demanding
impossible perfection [complete internal consistancy]
of a human construct - an organized religion. You
have not shown how or why "all facets of a particular
religion are interrelated with the whole." You have
declared it to be so, but that does not _make_ it so.
Debbi
I'll See Yer Saint, An' Raise Ya An Avatar Maru ;)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
