by Terry 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Terry-----I need no forgiveness nor will I ask for it. I am learning to forgive self and also applaud self as it comes about. I think it makes me a more compassionate soul. I am saddened by my realization that must let go of a life time of belief. Belief in GOD, in PARADISE, in EVERLASTING LIFE! I must move on and live for today......really live. Still......I must keep my thoughts quiet. I cannot share them with my closest of companions.....this is the pain I walk with.
Peg
Isn't it apparent that the justice of Judaism is more ethical than that of Christianity because of the balance of fairness as regards victims?
Well, that depends on who you are asking, doesn't it? Ethicaland fair are subject to the perspective of the beholder. As a ten year old girl, I sat and read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. When I got to the Judaic law covenant, I decided many of the laws for women were most definitely not "fair". I wondered why God favored boys over girls from birth onwards? My patriarchal, misogynist, male chauvinist, PO, father, on the other hand, thinks they are exceedingly "fair" and "ethical". Go figure!
I am addressing the contemporary understanding of the Judeo-Christian legacy on our system of justice and forgiveness and contrasting the disparate source elements philosophically in order to show there IS NO Judeo-Christian heritage because the two are dissonant!
First of all, I would challenge the assumption that there is a "contemporary understanding" of the Judeo-Christian legacy. There are many comtemporary understandings of Judaism and Christianity and their singular and combined effects on many countries systems of justice are most certainly dissonant. I agree with you on that. Disparity and dissonance of philosophical elements is not proof of non-existence. It could simply be evidence of the constant evolution of beliefs and philosophies. (Kid-A, please back me up here ).
For example, I may have been raised and taught by an Islamic mother and a Christian father who were each in disagreement on many elements of their faith but nevertheless, both faithfully passed on their dissonant beliefs to me. (Whether either or neither of the stories of their religious heritages are fact or fiction is irrelevant to my arguement). When I am an adult, I may claim that I have an Islamic-Christian heritage. Can you argue that there is no such thing as an Islamic-Christian heritage because the two belief systems contain disparate source elements and are dissonant? Well there may be no popular contemporary understanding of my heritage because most people are unaware of me and my family's unusual blend of beliefs but that does not mean it does not exist. You yourself pointed out the flaws in this type of logic in your previous post. I may believe certain elements of both belief systems and create my own new crazy hybrid religion which I then pass on to my children. (Allah/Jehovah forbid!)
My point is that perhaps the term "Judeo-Christian heritage" is not intended to be used as some sort of concrete, unchangeable, measurable, object but rather as a subjective term intending to describe the evolution of early Christianity from its founders Judaic roots, including all the many disparate elements that may have arisen from Judaism and also encompassing all the many diverse branches of Christianity that eventually involved. In other words, I think the problem is that you are trying to give a very narrow definition to what was intended to be a very broad and general usage.
By the way, I have a Jehovah's Witness heritage and then I involved into an agnostic and then into an atheist with a definite affinity for Buddhist philosophy. Maybe someone should try to coin a popular term for that!
Cog
Comments?
With Judaism you appear to present a psychological view of the person - that they control and are responsible for all their actions - whereas the Christian view appears as more sociological, better explaining why certain things happen to and with certain groups of people.
eg. the prostitute that Jesus saves from stoning - the jewish view held her responsible and guilty, based on her personal involvement in a particular case, whereas Jesus effectively said, "Hey, aren't you all connected to this in some way as well ?"
God and religion were put there by men to give some sense and order to a confusing, large, and violent world. Some say.
eg. the prostitute that Jesus saves from stoning - the jewish view held her responsible and guilty, based on her personal involvement in a particular case, whereas Jesus effectively said, "Hey, aren't you all connected to this in some way as well ?"
As a sidebar concerning the above comment: the scripture referred to here is singled out by writer Bart Ehrman in his book, MISQUOTING JESUS as a later addition that was not in the early version of the bible. The fact that this scripture is bogus in no way prevented hundreds of years of referencing it as a fine lesson in forgiveness Jesus-style!
http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/04/review-misquoting-jesus.html
The fact that this scripture is bogus
Well there's "bogus"........... and there's "bogus"
Nevertheless, Jesus is portrayed as considerate of social circumstance - another eg. the woman at the well, who "lived in sin"
Your quest for a Justice system that makes sense is missing part of the puzzle. The disciples of Jesus asked the Master this very question when they inquired why the blind beggar was born blind. Were his “previous” sins the cause, or were the sins of the parents visited on their child?
Although Jesus answered in the negative on both counts, it’s what Jesus does NOT say that is quite telling about the thoughts that were going on within the close-knit circle of Jesus and the disciples. They were discussing the sins of the man before his birth, however Jesus NEVER rebuked them for this pattern of thought! Thus, the disciples assumed that God’s perfect justice system was at work and that the blind beggar had been a victim of an eye for an eye. On this particular occasion they were not correct in their assumptions, however, it's quite a daunting task to guess at another person’s karma. This is what they were talking about – no question about it.
Karma is the result of a perfect justice system - however the perfect justice system has a built-in safety valve for people that stray so far off course, they are surrounded by their 'own' karma everywhere they look. Grace is that safety valve. Against forgiveness, compassion, patience and love, there is no retribution or karma.
Herein lies the Justice system you seek. It's a big subject, and this is such a short answer to it. Good luck in your quest! I am still looking, however I firmly believe nothing about karma and reincarnation goes against the bible – but lends teeth to many of it’s arguments.
Karma is the result of a perfect justice system - however the perfect justice system has a built-in safety valve for people that stray so far off course, they are surrounded by their 'own' karma everywhere they look. Grace is that safety valve. Against forgiveness, compassion, patience and love, there is no retribution or karma
Karma is a well-oiled machine designed by our cry for balance, fairness and justice powered by wishful-thinking.
You see, we all WANT there to be a court of last resort that makes us whole when we are damaged by others. Goodness knows humanity has tried to invent every conceivable approach to this problem. The chaos inherent in human existence (let alone the life of an animal or insect) is so random, perplexing and irrational--it should surprise nobody that we either invent a device to fix this problem or we imagine there is some great PLAN in place by powers much larger than ourselves.
How many of us are ever given to contemplate the faint possibility that it is all just willy-nilly and helter-skelter and there is nothing we can do about it except to make life for ourselves as gentle and empathetic as possible?
Think about it, by surrendering to the belief system of a "greater power" we relinquish our own share in creating a better life for everybody. It is a profound shrugging off; a folding of the hands and a turning away which is, frankly, quite awful and despicable.
Just a side thought: I find it interesting that Paul in his generally-aknowledged "authentic" epistles avoids the notion of forgiveness of sins at a theological level (the verb aphiemi in this sense and context only appears in a quotation, Romans 4:7 -- this is, not Paul's own word but the LXX Psalter's) and rather uses the totally different concept of justification, i.e., a legal metaphor which is used in a "transindividual" way. Strictly the sinner is not "forgiven," he becomes (or rather is revealed as) someone else, i.e, righteous, "in Christ". The notion of "forgiveness of sins" comes up only in Colossians-Ephesians, which make up a different stage of thought and are commonly regarded as post-Pauline.
Forgiveness can be a complex topic, I guess. I've always liked the story about the guy that was mercifully forgiven enormous "debt" only to turn around and ruthlessly refuse to forgive mere "pennies" owed him.
<br>
