Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Is Redemption Unethical?

#21
Secular Sanity Offline
MR is correct. You cannot consider yourself a Christian without believing in the objective realty of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RIB05YeMiW8

If you want to be a Christian Apologist, you can’t just watch Jordan Peterson’s videos. You have to read.
Reply
#22
Syne Offline
(Nov 26, 2018 06:11 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: MR is correct. You cannot consider yourself a Christian without believing in the objective realty of Christ’s death and resurrection.

No one denied that Jesus' death and resurrection are part and parcel with Christian beliefs.
What's being debated is how Christians understand the significance of those, not if they are or are not believed to occur.

Quote:You have to read.

Yes, yes you do.
Reply
#23
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 26, 2018 06:42 PM)Syne Wrote: No one denied that Jesus' death and resurrection are part and parcel with Christian beliefs.
What's being debated is how Christians understand the significance of those, not if they are or are not believed to occur.

Is that what you believe, Syne, or are you agnostic on this like Peterson?

*one eyebrow raised

Quote:The world is a very strange place. It’s far stranger than we think. We don’t understand about consciousness and its relationship to the body. I don’t understand the structure of being well enough to make my way through the complexities of the resurrection story. I would say that it’s the most mysterious element of the biblical stories to me and perhaps I’m not alone in that. It’s the central drama in the Christian Corpus let’s say but I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to boil it down to something like, do you believe that or do you not believe it? I don’t know the limits of human possibility. In order to stay alive, it is necessary to get the balance between death and life right in your psyche and your physiology because death keeps you alive. Your cells die and regenerate all the time. And if you die too much then you die. And if you don’t die enough then you also die. You end up with cancer or something like that. You have to get the balance between death and life right in order to survive. I don’t know what would happen if you got the balance between death and life exactly right. I don’t know what the upper limits are to human possibility and neither does anyone else. We don’t know what we’re capable of. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of heaven. I’m unwilling to rule out the existence of life after death. I’m unwilling to rule the idea of universal redemption and the defeat of evil.

Whew-wee! To have the authority to tell people how to live is POWER, isn't it?  Religion is power…pure and simple.

(Nov 25, 2018 09:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Sounds similar to the US cyclists killed in Tajikistan (98% Muslim).

One thing that you can say about him is that he was a Christian. This is what they believe, and according to his beliefs, he did the right thing. He did what he was told; to spread the gospel.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Reply
#24
Syne Offline
(Nov 26, 2018 09:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 26, 2018 06:42 PM)Syne Wrote: No one denied that Jesus' death and resurrection are part and parcel with Christian beliefs.
What's being debated is how Christians understand the significance of those, not if they are or are not believed to occur.

Is that what you believe, Syne, or are you agnostic on this like Peterson?

*one eyebrow raised
I've never claimed to be a Christian. It is possible to be a Christian apologist (or an apologist for anything) without espousing every precept of the thing.
I know I've told you both before.

Peterson, being Canadian, isn't too different from a Brit.

A quarter of people who describe themselves as Christians in Great Britain do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, a survey commissioned by the BBC suggests.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39153121


Quote:
(Nov 25, 2018 09:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Sounds similar to the US cyclists killed in Tajikistan (98% Muslim).

One thing that you can say about him is that he was a Christian. This is what they believe, and according to his beliefs, he did the right thing. He did what he was told; to spread the gospel.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Why do you feel the need to reply to a different thread here? What does proselytizing have to do with redemption?
The cyclists were not Christian, as one wrote in their blog, "Evil is a make-believe concept we've invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own." - http://www.simplycycling.org/blog/2018/3/25/22
They weren't following any command to proselytize.


Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. - Act 10:34 & 35

The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty. - Proverbs 27:12

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, - Titus 3:1


IOW, he broke the law, wasn't prudent of danger, and didn't trust god to find the god-fearing and righteous without his, personal, help.
He seems to have made himself the center of his task instead of god and the Bible.
Reply
#25
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 26, 2018 06:42 PM)Syne Wrote: No one denied that Jesus' death and resurrection are part and parcel with Christian beliefs.
What's being debated is how Christians understand the significance of those, not if they are or are not believed to occur.

And how do they understand it? Which theory is the most popular?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity

(Nov 26, 2018 10:51 PM)Syne Wrote: I've never claimed to be a Christian. It is possible to be a Christian apologist (or an apologist for anything) without espousing every precept of the thing.
I know I've told you both before.

So, is that a big no? You don't believe that the resurrection is true?

(Nov 25, 2018 09:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Why do you feel the need to reply to a different thread here? What does proselytizing have to do with redemption?
The cyclists were not Christian, as one wrote in their blog, ".

I’m sorry. That wasn’t very clear. I was referring to John Allen Chau the missionary remembered for commitment to sharing the gospel with those who have never heard. His story prompted me to post the redemption thread.

"All Nations aspires to see disciple making movements in every people group of the world so that Jesus may be worshipped by every tongue, tribe and nation.

All the things He sacrificed, even His own self.

In light of Christ’s path for our salvation, I am in awe that He has offered me an invitation to walk a similar road as He once did. He was the first missionary, leaving His home, heaven, to come to the lost people of earth. In Philippians 2:1-11, it shows this paradox and encourages us to be like Christ in this way. Jesus is leading many of us on a similar journey, to leave our home—what is comfortable and normal to us—to go to an unfamiliar land among unfamiliar people.  Why? For love, as the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22, “…that some would be saved.” To be like Christ is to be a missionary."

Reply
#26
Syne Offline
(Nov 27, 2018 03:18 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 26, 2018 06:42 PM)Syne Wrote: No one denied that Jesus' death and resurrection are part and parcel with Christian beliefs.
What's being debated is how Christians understand the significance of those, not if they are or are not believed to occur.

And how do they understand it? Which theory is the most popular?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity
Considering Catholicism is the largest denomination, that would seem to be the satisfaction theory of atonement.
Specifically, most Christians, in my experience, espouse this:

So the function of satisfaction for Aquinas is not to placate a wrathful God or in some other way remove the constraints which compel God to damn sinners. Instead, the function of satisfaction is to restore a sinner to a state of harmony with God by repairing or restoring in the sinner what sin has damaged. This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm. Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral injustice to be righted.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfacti...ion_theory


Quote:
(Nov 26, 2018 10:51 PM)Syne Wrote: I've never claimed to be a Christian. It is possible to be a Christian apologist (or an apologist for anything) without espousing every precept of the thing.
I know I've told you both before.

So, is that a big no? You don't believe that the resurrection is true?
Oh, I believe that it is true, but that's a very different question from whether it happened as literally described.
Quote:
(Nov 25, 2018 09:19 PM)Syne Wrote: Why do you feel the need to reply to a different thread here? What does proselytizing have to do with redemption?
The cyclists were not Christian, as one wrote in their blog, ".

I’m sorry. That wasn’t very clear. I was referring to John Allen Chau the missionary remembered for commitment to sharing the gospel with those who have never heard. His story prompted me to post the redemption thread.
That still doesn't explain how you link proselytizing to redemption. That guy's death seemed to be both meaningless and easily avoidable.
Quote:"All Nations aspires to see disciple making movements in every people group of the world so that Jesus may be worshipped by every tongue, tribe and nation.
And? Not everyone who claims to actually have a valid Biblical reason actually has one, and that doesn't change the Biblical admonitions to follow the laws and heed danger.
Quote:All the things He sacrificed, even His own self.

In light of Christ’s path for our salvation, I am in awe that He has offered me an invitation to walk a similar road as He once did. He was the first missionary, leaving His home, heaven, to come to the lost people of earth. In Philippians 2:1-11, it shows this paradox and encourages us to be like Christ in this way. Jesus is leading many of us on a similar journey, to leave our home—what is comfortable and normal to us—to go to an unfamiliar land among unfamiliar people.  Why? For love, as the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22, “…that some would be saved.” To be like Christ is to be a missionary."


And you don't see the grandiosity there? Comparing oneself to Jesus in a self-aggrandizing manner. Philippians 2:1-11 is actually talking about imitating Christ's humility, specifically "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit." And 1 Corinthians 9 isn't talking about Christ at all but Paul's own mission as an Apostle, i.e. "For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach."
Reply
#27
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 27, 2018 05:26 AM)Syne Wrote: Oh, I believe that it is true, but that's a very different question from whether it happened as literally described.

Ostronomos comes to mind, which makes me wonder why you’re giving the pious a free pass. 

Christ is the cornerstone. The resurrection is the central truth of Christianity. Without it, it crumbles. "If a man die, shall he live again?" Job 14:14. The resurrection answers this question with a big fat 'YES'. The perpetual lie is driven by this hope and fear. If you don’t believe that the resurrection is an empirical truth, how then can you defend the Christian faith?

Syne Wrote:That still doesn't explain how you link proselytizing to redemption. That guy's death seemed to be both meaningless and easily avoidable.

I linked that organizations grandiose mission statement and Christian missionaries are calling John Allen Chau a martyr. The moral influence theory depicts Jesus' death as a martyrdom, in which he was killed because of his teaching and leadership of a controversial movement. Jesus' death is thus understood as a consequence of his activity, and it gains its significance as part of the larger story of his life, death, and resurrection.

Syne Wrote:And you don't see the grandiosity there? Comparing oneself to Jesus in a self-aggrandizing manner.

Of course I do, but grandiose delusions are generally the result of a mental health disorder. Where do we draw the line?

If functional impairment is the key difference between delusions and religious fervor, I’m curious to know how missionaries traveling to dangerous areas across the globe can be seen as anything other than delusions of grandeur. The article below purports another interesting hypothesis that atheistic thinking is more likely prone to slide into pathology than religious thinking. However, after watching Peterson jump through hoops over the objective validity in regards to the resurrection, I can’t help but wonder if he’s slipping.  Big Grin

Why Religion is Not Delusional
As with any psychological disorder, functional impairment is key. Perfectly normal people hold all kinds of beliefs based on partial or equivocal evidence — the vagaries of human life make this unavoidable. So the standard for determining whether or not religious beliefs are delusional is the same as that required for any belief: is the belief contradicted by so much obvious and convincing evidence that in order to maintain it the believer becomes functionally compromised, producing suffering for themselves and those around them? In general the answer here is no, for a number of reasons.

First, religions largely traffic in beliefs that stand outside of easy evidentiary evaluation — in other words, religious notions tend to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable. For example, most of the global religions have long-standing rituals designed to provide cleansing of the soul or forgiveness of sins. There’s a far shorter history (if any at all) of rituals that protect one from bullets or other lethal projectiles. Rituals claiming to accomplish the latter are simply too easily refuted by evidence. What gets winnowed out of religions over time are those practices or notions that place too great a strain on credulity. The ideas that remain are stubbornly oblique to empirical analysis. It’s very hard to prove or disprove whether a benevolent God exists, or that the universe has purpose, or that man has a spiritual as well as material nature. Whatever evidence one might raise on these questions is, at best, ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

Second, an important finding that has emerged over the past 20 years or so from the cognitive science of religion is that religious thinking builds quite seamlessly on our natural modes of cognition. By evolutionary design, we tend to see the world in terms of intentional, meaningful patterns. Religious thinking simply takes this mode of thought to its very logical conclusion: we’re inclined to think the world is an intentionally created, meaningful place because it is. Since religious thinking comes naturally to us, it is actually the skeptical mindset that requires greater effort to consistently maintain. Which leads to an interesting hypothesis: given the relatively greater mental effort required to maintain skeptical beliefs, it should be atheistic thinking, more so than religious thinking, that is prone to slide into pathology.

How do you distinguish between religious fervor and mental illiness?
Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.

But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.

It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. For example, the Church of Scientology argued with the Internal Revenue Service for years to be classified as a charitable religious organization and to qualify for tax-exempt status. The Church eventually won this battle in 1993, a major step towards becoming a mainstream American religion.

According to Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, a book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright, Scientologists believe in alien spirits inhabiting human bodies. Many believe they have special powers, like telekinesis and telepathy.

This puts mental health professionals in a tricky, cultural bind. Before 1993, should mental health professionals have treated patients expressing these beliefs as psychotic? After 1993, as faithful adherents?

These are tough questions. The practices of Scientology and Mormon fundamentalism are far from the only examples of this oft-blurred line between religion and mental health care. Virtually every religion has unusual beliefs and rituals, from consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in Catholicism to fasting as a way of atoning for sins in Judaism.
Reply
#28
Magical Realist Online
Quote:Virtually every religion has unusual beliefs and rituals, from consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in Catholicism to fasting as a way of atoning for sins in Judaism

Nothing crazier than believing a jewish carpenter that was crucified 2000 years came back to life and ascended to heaven to become God. We tend to see it as normal because we are so used to it. But it isn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's psychotic.
Reply
#29
Syne Offline
(Nov 27, 2018 08:12 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Nov 27, 2018 05:26 AM)Syne Wrote: Oh, I believe that it is true, but that's a very different question from whether it happened as literally described.

Ostronomos comes to mind, which makes me wonder why you’re giving the pious a free pass. 

Christ is the cornerstone. The resurrection is the central truth of Christianity. Without it, it crumbles. "If a man die, shall he live again?" Job 14:14. The resurrection answers this question with a big fat 'YES'. The perpetual lie is driven by this hope and fear. If you don’t believe that the resurrection is an empirical truth, how then can you defend the Christian faith?
For one, most Christians aren't foolish enough to claim they have "proof" of god. Personal evidence they've experienced in their own lives, sure, but not anything that would, itself, compel belief from anyone else without a personal experience of their own.

Job is asking about men, not Christ. And do you really think he's asking about the bodily resurrection of men? O_o
Christianity does not espouse reincarnation.

There is a strong early tradition that the family and immediate followers of Jesus, as well as Paul the Apostle, had visionary and mystical experiences of Jesus after his death. Several decades later, when the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were being written, the emphasis had shifted to the physical nature of the resurrection, while still overlapping with the earlier concept of a divine exaltation of Jesus' soul. This development can be linked to the changing make-up of the Christian community: Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish, and Second Temple Judaism emphasised the life of the soul; the gospel-writers, in an overwhelmingly Greco-Roman church, stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalised and deified in his physical body.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Resur...s_of_Jesus


Life after death, as an immortal soul, is an essential tenet of Christianity, but the bodily resurrection of Jesus is only significant as symbolism or miracle. Disbelief in a literal bodily resurrection doesn't change anything.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:That still doesn't explain how you link proselytizing to redemption. That guy's death seemed to be both meaningless and easily avoidable.

I linked that organizations grandiose mission statement and Christian missionaries are calling John Allen Chau a martyr. The moral influence theory depicts Jesus' death as a martyrdom, in which he was killed because of his teaching and leadership of a controversial movement. Jesus' death is thus understood as a consequence of his activity, and it gains its significance as part of the larger story of his life, death, and resurrection.
Wait, you just claimed that Jesus' resurrection was the important bit. Dodgy
Chau, et al., cannot provide redemption; only god can do that. So yes, his "martyrdom" does seem mostly selfish ambition.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:And you don't see the grandiosity there? Comparing oneself to Jesus in a self-aggrandizing manner.

Of course I do, but grandiose delusions are generally the result of a mental health disorder. Where do we draw the line?
As with any mental disorder, we always draw the line at behavior that causes distress or obvious harm to the individual. Religious beliefs in general correlate with many positive results, but taking unnecessary risks for virtually assured failure obviously demonstrates a mismatch of perception and reality...as well as requiring cherry-picking the Bible to justify.
Quote:If functional impairment is the key difference between delusions and religious fervor, I’m curious to know how missionaries traveling to dangerous areas across the globe can be seen as anything other than delusions of grandeur.
Depends on the risk/reward calculation. Not every dangerous place assures death, and a lot of good can be done with relatively moderate risk.
Quote:The article below purports another interesting hypothesis that atheistic thinking is more likely prone to slide into pathology than religious thinking. However, after watching Peterson jump through hoops over the objective validity in regards to the resurrection, I can’t help but wonder if he’s slipping. Big Grin

Why Religion is Not Delusional
As with any psychological disorder, functional impairment is key. Perfectly normal people hold all kinds of beliefs based on partial or equivocal evidence — the vagaries of human life make this unavoidable. So the standard for determining whether or not religious beliefs are delusional is the same as that required for any belief: is the belief contradicted by so much obvious and convincing evidence that in order to maintain it the believer becomes functionally compromised, producing suffering for themselves and those around them? In general the answer here is no, for a number of reasons.

First, religions largely traffic in beliefs that stand outside of easy evidentiary evaluation — in other words, religious notions tend to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable. For example, most of the global religions have long-standing rituals designed to provide cleansing of the soul or forgiveness of sins. There’s a far shorter history (if any at all) of rituals that protect one from bullets or other lethal projectiles. Rituals claiming to accomplish the latter are simply too easily refuted by evidence. What gets winnowed out of religions over time are those practices or notions that place too great a strain on credulity. The ideas that remain are stubbornly oblique to empirical analysis. It’s very hard to prove or disprove whether a benevolent God exists, or that the universe has purpose, or that man has a spiritual as well as material nature. Whatever evidence one might raise on these questions is, at best, ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

Second, an important finding that has emerged over the past 20 years or so from the cognitive science of religion is that religious thinking builds quite seamlessly on our natural modes of cognition. By evolutionary design, we tend to see the world in terms of intentional, meaningful patterns. Religious thinking simply takes this mode of thought to its very logical conclusion: we’re inclined to think the world is an intentionally created, meaningful place because it is. Since religious thinking comes naturally to us, it is actually the skeptical mindset that requires greater effort to consistently maintain. Which leads to an interesting hypothesis: given the relatively greater mental effort required to maintain skeptical beliefs, it should be atheistic thinking, more so than religious thinking, that is prone to slide into pathology.
I've already shown you that many Christians in the UK, and likely Canada, don't believe in a physical resurrection. So any failure to understand Peterson's position is your own. Most people aren't interested in offending people for holding very common beliefs, especially when their own are significantly the same.
Quote:How do you distinguish between religious fervor and mental illiness?
Take an example of a man who walks into an emergency department, mumbling incoherently. He says he’s hearing voices in his head, but insists there’s nothing wrong with him. He hasn’t used any drugs or alcohol. If he were to be evaluated by mental health professionals, there’s a good chance he might be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia.

But what if that same man were deeply religious? What if his incomprehensible language was speaking in tongues? If he could hear Jesus speaking to him? He might also insist nothing were wrong with him. After all, he’s practicing his faith.

It’s not just the ambiguities of mental health diagnoses that create this problem—the vague nature of how we define religion further complicates matters. For example, the Church of Scientology argued with the Internal Revenue Service for years to be classified as a charitable religious organization and to qualify for tax-exempt status. The Church eventually won this battle in 1993, a major step towards becoming a mainstream American religion.

According to Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief, a book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lawrence Wright, Scientologists believe in alien spirits inhabiting human bodies. Many believe they have special powers, like telekinesis and telepathy.

This puts mental health professionals in a tricky, cultural bind. Before 1993, should mental health professionals have treated patients expressing these beliefs as psychotic? After 1993, as faithful adherents?

These are tough questions. The practices of Scientology and Mormon fundamentalism are far from the only examples of this oft-blurred line between religion and mental health care. Virtually every religion has unusual beliefs and rituals, from consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in Catholicism to fasting as a way of atoning for sins in Judaism.
Extreme examples, and false interpretations, used to straw man widely held beliefs. Rolleyes
Reply
#30
Secular Sanity Offline
(Nov 27, 2018 09:03 PM)Syne Wrote: Life after death, as an immortal soul, is an essential tenet of Christianity, but the bodily resurrection of Jesus is only significant as symbolism or miracle. Disbelief in a literal bodily resurrection doesn't change anything.

Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects.

The resurrection of the dead is a standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions. As a religious concept, it is used in two distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized eschatology), or else a belief in a singular resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

The death and resurrection of Jesus, an example of resurrection, is the central focus of Christianity. Christian theological debate ensues with regard to what kind of resurrection is factual – either a spiritual resurrection with a spirit body into Heaven, or a material resurrection with a restored human body. While most Christians believe Jesus' resurrection from the dead and ascension to Heaven was in a material body, a very small minority believe it was spiritual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Hmm...Can a soul die?  Big Grin

Why do most of them believe that it was a material body? Because death was the punishment for the original sin, duh!

Was it a spirit body, Syne? I don’t know. Do spirits eat food?  Angel

Luke 24
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
And he took it, and did eat before them.


Maybe you're a camel, Syne. Maybe that's all you'll ever be. Who knows?
Almost all cradle, grave words and values that are imparted to us, “good’ and “evil” this dowry calls itself.  For its sake we are forgiven for being alive.
And for this reason one lets the little children come to one, in order to restrain them early on from loving themselves: this is the spirit of gravity’s doing.
And we – we faithfully lug what is imparted to us on hard shoulders and over rough mountains! And if we sweat, then we are told: “Yes, life is a heavy burden!”
But only the human being is a heavy burden to himself!  This is because he lugs too much that is foreign to him.  Like a camel he kneels down and allows himself to be well burdened.  
Especially the strong human being who is eager to bear and inherently reverent; too many foreign words and values he loads upon himself – now life seems a desert to him!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)