david@ssc-vax.UUCP (01/31/84)
Laura Creighton said this in an earlier article: > I think that this is horrible. It is one thing to be responsible for the > NOW, but must one carry all one's past misdeeds with one? Certain moral > theories would have this. I remember being told that "god will sit there and > tell you all your sins, every last one, on judgement day and you will be > responsible for eery one". Hmm. I did a lot of awful things as a child, > most of which I would not do now. I am not the same person. I find it hard > to take responsibility for things that "the-I-that-was" did -- I have enough > to worry about with "the-I-that-is". > > I can sit with an amused detatchment and wonder at the person that I was, > but I feel very little (perhaps none? it is hard to say) attatchment for > that person. I feel the same sort of detatched copmpassion that I can summon > for any human being. As I move closer to the present I feel more of an > attatchment, and the sins of 2 years ago still weigh upon me -- but I can see > that in a few years they too will be gone, as I commit them to the past. Isn't this a very dangerous position? Using this approach, I can justify murder: "No, I didn't kill him! The Dave Norris of January 29th killed him; to-day is the 30th, and I am not the same person." Ok, one day isn't that much. But does four or five years of "commiting sins to the past" make the child whose father was murdered any better off? Admittedly, this is a very emotional argument. But where do we draw the line? A day? A week? Ten years? What kinds of guilt-ridden sins do we include? Murder? Rape? Picking your nose? This argument has the appeal of softening the guilt for past sins (*not* mistakes) and making one's conscience feel better. But it has two flaws: it makes the (perhaps false) assumption that guilt is a totally bad thing and serves no useful purpose. Remove the guilt, feel better. This has somewhat of the "EST" flavor which has always left me cold; indifference to guilt is one thing, indifference to the act that caused the guilt is another. What about the fellow whose wallet you stole? No matter that his vacation is ruined, let's just worry about our own feelings. Secondly, it ignores the fact that there are consequences of sin. Before anyone starts flaming, ignore any religous viewpoint at all and just consider the average drug addict who steals to support his habit. The first theft must have been very hard. But after time, he becomes callous to his feelings of guilt, and it is easier to steal the next television set; he no longer worries about the people he stole it from. Remember "Holocaust"? The first Jew killed is the hardest. The next ten are not so bad, after 100, it gets real easy... The horrors committed by the Nazis were easier for them to do the more they did them. Laura, pardon me for being sarcastic, but I know where you are coming from. But for such a belief to work, men (read *all* men) must abide by the "Golden Rule." As is usually the case, however, someone will use the law to their own advantage (the case of the fellow who was acquitted because he did not know his 'rights' is a prime example.. a new law was created requiring police to read rights verbatim from a card.. what was his name? Any lawyers out there?). And if all men abided by the "Golden Rule", there wouldn't be any guilt to worry about, would there? (Laura knows where this is leading :-) Please take all sarcasm in the humorous vein in which it is intended. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
tischler@ihuxv.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (02/01/84)
Dave, If you think that putting ALL your sins behind you (not talking about murder and the like, here) is a cop-out, wouldn't you also admit that receiving forgiveness for sins from a priest through confession is also a cop-out? Of all people, you should tell a priest! Why not talk to the person you hurt or offended by the sin? That seems quite a bit more appropriate. But to receive penance from an uninvolved person for any old sin seems like taking the easy way out. Understanding your sins, and promising yourself not to do them again is just as much "the easy way out". Let's not be hypocrites, Mark
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (02/05/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-79100:fortune:21900009:000:986
fortune!rpw3 Feb 5 02:35:00 1984
Hmmm... I remember once when someone asked Tai Situ Rinpoche (a Tibetan
Buddhist meditation master) what they could do about feeling guilty about
such-and-such a thing the person was wont to do. Situ Rinpoche's answer
was (with a bit of incredulity on his face), "Well, don't DO it anymore!".
The point I took from that was that guilt is often a way of avoiding actually
dealing with the consequences of our actions, because it is easier to feel
guilty than to acknowledge our error and correct our future actions. From
that point of view, "guilt" is a sub-catagory of "pride" (also considered
a sin in most religions), and not particularly useful.
(The full empathy of pain with someone you have hurt can be far worse than
the guilt of having done it. Empathy deals with the other; guilt is a very
private vice.)
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/06/84)
Rob Warnock says: >> Hmmm... I remember once when someone asked Tai Situ Rinpoche >> (a Tibetan Buddhist meditation master) what they could do >> about feeling guilty about such-and-such a thing the person >> was wont to do. Situ Rinpoche's answer was (with a bit of >> incredulity on his face), "Well, don't DO it anymore!". >> >> The point I took from that was that guilt is often a way of >> avoiding actually dealing with the consequences of our >> actions, because it is easier to feel guilty than to >> acknowledge our error and correct our future actions. From >> that point of view, "guilt" is a sub-catagory of "pride" >> (also considered a sin in most religions), and not >> particularly useful. >> >> (The full empathy of pain with someone you have hurt can be >> far worse than the guilt of having done it. Empathy deals >> with the other; guilt is a very private vice.) In the Catholic prayer, "The Act of Contrition", we pray: Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. I detest all of my sins not only because of thy just punishment, but also because they offend thee, My God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Catholics, who are accused (with some justice) of having over-emphasized guilt, do acknowledge that the important thing is not to feel guilty but to cease and desist. After all, Jesus, when he came upon the woman found in adultery who was about to be stoned and said "Let him who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone." The crowd slinks away and Jesus asks "Is there any here to condemn you?" "No." "Well, neither do I condemn you, but in future, avoid this sin." Guilt really does not cure anything except that it may serve as a deterrent to future occurances. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (02/07/84)
In the words of the great Teutonic Zen master, Nit Tsa, "The bite of conscience, like the bite of a dog into a stone, is a stupidity."
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/07/84)
This assumes that the reason one feels guilt over something is that it IS wrong, rather than simply FEELING that it is wrong. The difference is very important. Religions, parents, teachers, etc., have the power to indoctrinate people into believing that things are wrong. Thus the wrongness may not be with the action, but with the guilt itself. If someone has done a truly wrong action, chances are that they won't feel guilt. More likely, they'll feel fear at the possibility of getting caught, which is probably the root of more of what we call 'guilt' in Western society than we realize. If religions/philosophers/whatever lead us to behave in certain ways out of fear and guilt instead of out of rationality, then we are nothing but a race of infants from an emotional and social perspective. -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
scc@mgweed.UUCP (Steve Collins) (02/10/84)
This is an Old Article, but I would like to comment. Repenting of your sins is not a cop out. That is of course unless you don't believe in the bible. I guess a lot that is expected of a Christian would be a cop out or unexplainable. To believe that Gods word is what it is will not be accomplished thru the logical proccess of intellectual reasoning. It is thru faith and the intervention of the Holy Spirit.