If others damage you, the only way to fix that damage is by forgiving them. By forgiving them, you are manifesting within yourself a process whereby they don't need to pay you back, and you won’t owe them anything either. Anything in excess of this is human and doomed to failure.
I disagree that Karma is well oiled, unless you mean snake oil.
Karma has been bastardised from the earliest times of human history, long before the day of Jesus. Denying the spiritual aspect of humanity is what keeps one man subject to another’s will. Hence, the necessity of the Christ making a personal appearance on Earth as Jesus to sort the whole mess out! You have touched on a very deep subject that has its roots at the very cornerstone of life and free will in the Universe.
I will agree with you that mankind is in a world of trouble and confusion abounds in all subjects of this nature. We are in a right mess.
Karma is not about that “greater power” keeping the scales of justice even. Those scales of justice were given to us, built right into the fabric of free will and the consequences that come with it. As we draw closer to God, we will start to see imperfections within ourselves that makes us ashamed, embarrassed and guilty about our own actions. Karmic consequences is something we do to ourselves, in order to balance things right, so that we feel good about drawing closer to God (if that is what we want)
PS.
SPAZnik. There's a few scriptures of that nature which I find fascinating. I can't help but feel there are little gems of spiritual lessons to be learnt, which we have so far overlooked.
WHY GOD CANNOT FORGIVE YOU
by Terry 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
UpAndAtom
-
Terry
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
Narkissos, where do you stand on the idea that Paul is the "inventor" of Christianity?
He and Jesus don't seem to be on the same page as I read them.
-
Narkissos
Narkissos, where do you stand on the idea that Paul is the "inventor" of Christianity?
He and Jesus don't seem to be on the same page as I read them.
If we focus on the (very diverse) "1st-century Christianity," as echoed in the NT and other early Christian writings, it appears that it has a number of fairly independent sources -- besides Paul, Galilean radicals, the Jamesian "church" close to the temple in Jerusalem, the quasi-Essenian Baptist movement, etc. Paul is very important in the diaspora but the Hellenistic churches which preexist him there can be traced back to other (non-Palestinian) sources in the fringe of diaspora Judaism, like Alexandria (Apollos).
If we focus on later "standardised Christianity" (the early catholic church, as reflected from the Pastorals to the Church Fathers for instance) it certainly refers to Paul but is quite different actually. It's not such a big stretch to say that, while Paul was revered, the original thrust of Paulinism was almost forgotten in the Church between the Marcionite crisis (Marcion being perhaps the most faithful heir of Paul) and the Reformation (which put a different spin on Paulinism).
Paul was a convenient authority figure for the constitution of a mostly Gentile, Roman-friendly, brand of "Christianity" which happened to be historically successful. But what was eventually sold under his name was pretty far from what he taught.
Contrasting Paul with Jesus is always tricky, because the Gospels were written after Paul and a certain form of Paulinism is woven into them, through Mark's original canvass. What differs from Paul echoes other contemporary brands of 1st-century Christianity, but not necessarily Jesus himself. So the common belief that "Paul betrayed Jesus" (or, as some might put it, "Paul's Christianity betrayed Jesus' Judaism") is a bit of an optical illusion imo.
-
Terry
If we focus on the (very diverse) "1st-century Christianity," as echoed in the NT and other early Christian writings, it appears that it has a number of fairly independent sources -- besides Paul, Galilean radicals, the Jamesian "church" close to the temple in Jerusalem, the quasi-Essenian Baptist movement, etc. Paul is very important in the diaspora but the Hellenistic churches which preexist him there can be traced back to other (non-Palestinian) sources in the fringe of diaspora Judaism, like Alexandria (Apollos).
Indeed!
The more one delves into tributaries feeding the stream of Christianity the less one is able to think of the outcome as anything other than a stew of many flavors seasoned to taste.
Judaism was shaped by opposing forces, surely and Christianity as well. So many opinions, theories and orthodoxies hung upon so unsteady a peg!
Christianity, it would appear, is a kind of hallucination brought on by whatever the individual was sniffing, imbibing, injecting or dreaming, yet; everybody seemed to rely on the misnomer/concept CHRISTIANITY as though they were all on the same page somehow.
As a Jehovah's Witness it seemed so clear cut and transparent because so much information about sources was kept invisible and no outside "authority" was tolerated. Moreover, so much of door-to-door rebuttal was so toothless and ill-informed it was easy to maintain the illusion that we JW's actually knew so much more!
At the bookstore where I work in the Religion (and Philosophy/Metaphysics) section I get to talk to a wide variety of seminary students and everyday church-goers. The level of education is not a wide one. Only one or two outstanding students seem genuinely self-honest in their appraisals.
It seems to be what holds my interest these days; just digging yet deeper and deeper like an archeologist hoping to come across one shankbone or another that puts the skeleton into shape and pops it all into focus.