(no subject)

[sigerson]

Random bits...

--On Wednesday, I came home late. DaMan was out, and so the Oob greeted me at the top of the stairs, purring and meeping. Then she threw up. As I'm getting paper towels, she throws up again. As I'm cleaning it up, I notice something green in the mix. Leafy, even. We don't have houseplants; I finally put down my backpack and take off my jacket, wondering if I left out some parsley or something. I ask Oob what she's been eating. She meeps. I resolve to ask DaMan. When I finally walked into my study, I saw the cause: a great big beautiful vase of red tulips. He'd brought me flowers. Which had developed tiny bite marks.

--I have, at last count, 17 emails or contacts from friends that need to be replied to. Not just the two-line email reply, but a real in-depth "missed you, what have you been up to, here's what my month has been like." At some point the guilt will build up enough that I'll either respond to them or move them out of my inbox in shame. The oldest one is from Nate, in March.

--Got challenged in class, and thought I'd spread the challenge. Those of you who hold liberal religious beliefs, who are pretty laid-back and relaxed about it, who rarely bring up religion as a motivating factor or as a part of your life: By *not* talking about your religion, have you ceded the field to the right-wing?

--Also got whacked on the head with the Clue Stick of the Goddess. My past doesn't need redeeming. Love, forgiveness, understanding, acceptance, perhaps--but redemption?

--Does grad school increase cramps? I swear it's been worse this week than for the last two years.

--LJ is providing a nice phantom connection, but I think it's time I switch most of half-hour or so that I use to get back in touch into time spent answering the aforementioned 17 emails.


Back to work; there's a presentation for Monday on "Cosmopolitanisms". mmm...cosmos...

Comments

[heef.livejournal.com]

Regarding redemption: I believe that the concept is based on three axioms.
(a) People are created by God for the sole purpose of serving/loving/obeying/being-close-to God.
(b) Sin is defined as "that which spiritually distances people from God."
(c) God has provided a mechanism for redemption and wants us to use it so that we may undo sin and restore our spiritual closeness to him.

These, to me, are typical of the Abrahamic religions. What differs, largely, are definitions of what constitutes sin, and the nature of the redemption (sacrifice vs. works vs. Jesus, etc.) It is also commonly believed that sin that is unrepented/unredeemed has spiritual effects on people, thus aggravating their distance from God.

Since (I think) you do not agree with one or more of those axioms, it makes plenty of sense to me that you would not agree with the conclusion drawn from them.

[sigerson.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was thinking of my past in a largely non-religious context. (If that's the part you were referring to.)

Specifically, I was thinking that my past, despite its sins, flaws, missteps, the times I've hurt people, and the times I've been stupid, is not waiting for the present me to do some great deed of intelligence and kindness so that it can be made sense of. My history is not dependent on my present action to turn it into some kind of 'preface to greatness'; it'll continue to exist, sins and harms and joys and all, no matter what I do. I can't make it any better or worse by my present deeds; I can't undo the cruelties I've done or the joys I've felt.

The religious aspect comes in because I was in prayer, and thinking about how much I hated who I have been--for being blind, or cruel, or ignorant--and desperately wanting to do a Great Deed to redeem my past selves. And Her response to my prayer was the feeling that this was, somehow, missing the point. That I can neither walk away from my past nor be constantly struggling to undo it. What I have done, I have done. I must now learn from it; bear guilt or shame; but accept who I was. I was missing the point: the point, I think, is that my actions today will be the past that I carry with me tomorrow, and that this must weight my choices.

[heef.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was responding mostly to the general idea of redemption for actions, sins, anything - I think that all people who have any sort of conscience deal with it on some level - one *has* to think about it, even if it's on a secular humanist basis, or a devoutly religious one.

My first reaction was that redemption only has meaning to me in a religious context, hence my take on it. What you're saying (I believe) is that you can look at it in two ways - one, the idea of whether or not there is utility to trying to undo the past, or trying to use it to leverage self-improvement in the future. Two, the idea of whether or not your past has implications on a spiritual level - hence the need to redeem it. So I guess my curiosity is: do you believe there is a need for redemption outside of spirituality, excepting the basic humanist "learn from your mistakes" side of it?

I agree that a "great deed" cannot address or counterbalance the past. One of the biggest differences between Protestantism, versus Catholicism and Islam, is the emphasis on works. Protestants believe that we are supposed to do good works, but that only God can redeem - works cannot (the new covenant replacing the sacrifice-based (and therefore somewhat works-based) Jewish tradition.) Catholics believe that works can redeem, and Muslims believe in a sort of ledger sheet of good and bad works (at least some forms of them - this is the case in many African Islamic traditions.)

That's why, in a very similar way to what you found in prayer, Christians believe that while sins cannot be un-done, they can be redeemed and forgiven. So when you feel that you are released from the past, even though it still exists (or hasn't been counter-balanced by some great deed,) that's an idea that is very similar to the way Christians look at it, and the idea that actions in the past, even failures, can be turned into learning experiences and guides for a better life now and onward, is also supported in many faiths - we constantly talk about how God turns failure and defeat into success at church - highlighting one glaringly obvious example (no, not William Shatner's career, though that could be evidence of miracles, I suppose.)

Anyway, it seems to me that dealing with the past is not a matter of finding an adequate level of guilt (as some faiths seem to present it.) It's about determining how the past can make you better, and there's tremendous precedent for that in the faiths with which I'm familiar, so the response you got in prayer makes a lot of sense to me.