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.
