Her last post raised some questions which i posed to her as a comment and which she promptly answered, although, her answers also raised a question which i didn't much feel like re-commenting on. The whole thing had to do with temple treasures and their disposition or value and Ms. K's ably argued contention that devotee offerings ought to be left as offerings to the deity and not converted into currencies that have a larger more social use.
Now, is suppose i should mention that i am of the mindset that thinks religious institutions ought to be taxed, so, while i can respect Ms. K's thinking, i cannot agree with it.
In her argument, ms. K states that when she makes an offering of jewels or adornments to her deity she prefers that adornment be used to enhance the representation of that deity. wait. what?
I mean, here's me thinking that deities and gods and the like are spiritual concepts that represent the 'higher' aspirations of human kind and are not much concerned with the more physical aspects of being human. I should think that under those circumstances, ms K could affect that same adornment of that deity with the thought of a necklace and eschew the physical reality of one. But then, that's just me and i'm bored with the subject.
I guess i just don't get it.
It just seems as though the offerings that folks make to the institutions of religion look an awful lot like bribes. A sort of "look what i brung ya. can we be BFFs?" tinge to the whole thing.
But, that's probably just me.
in case anyone's interested
No comments:
Post a Comment