Wrestling with a dichotomy of two principles.

bobcat

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
We've all heard the phrase that "You reap what you sow", with the general understanding that undesirable consequences are the natural outcome of bad behavior, and it seems rather sound. Somewhat similar to Karma.

By the same token, we recognize that bad things can happen to good people and good things can happen to bad people. You may even be one of those good people who has endured a lot of grief, and yet you know others who are basically not so good, and they seem to prosper, and like the story of Job in the Old Testament, you wonder: "why me"?

Both Senaca and Marcus Aurelius seemed to be in agreement that both death and life, honor and dishonor, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty all happen equally to good men and bad, and therefore should not be considered as either bad or good. They are only perceived that way in the mind, but a good person stays detached from things not under their control, so they don't view them that way.

It seems that both of these principles are at odds, and that there is no appointed guardian of the good man's luggage. But if that is true, then how do we accept the premise that you reap what you sow?
 

Deep question ...from you so early in the day..:D

almost 1pm here, and I can't answer lol..

..seriously tho'... I seem to be one of those ''good people'' who've suffered for no good or obvious reason throughout my life... even simple things.. people might put it down to bad luck...

..yet watch as others who do horrible things get away with it.. whether criminally or morally.....so much as I wish '' reap what you sow '' was a consequence of everyone's actions..I've come to believe it's probably co-incidental if they do suffer in response to their actions...

Same with the adage ''live by the sword, die by the sword''...we've all seen it happen I'm sure but again it doesn't seem to happen enough for it to be more than co-incidental..( unless you're an addict or gun slinging criminal).
 
Well, "you reap what you sow" is a proverb, as such it's simply another statement wrapped in a Christian teaching. Not everyone is a Christian, so I guess that's one way of looking at it. If you don't believe in a God, then there's no heaven nor hell. So warnings or threats based on them are meaningless.

I think the answer to this is context. If someone commits a crime, and they're put in jail, then the phrase applies. But if someone, say, works down a coal mine all their life and gets black lung, they're also reaping what they sowed, but we'd never use it in this case.

I guess as a proverb, the phrase is used as a "you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes" kind of way. But when something happens outside of it being a moral choice, it doesn't apply.
 
VaughanJB said:
Well, "you reap what you sow" is a proverb, as such it's simply another statement wrapped in a Christian teaching. Not everyone is a Christian, so I guess that's one way of looking at it. If you don't believe in a God, then there's no heaven nor hell. So warnings or threats based on them are meaningless.

I think the answer to this is context. If someone commits a crime, and they're put in jail, then the phrase applies. But if someone, say, works down a coal mine all their life and gets black lung, they're also reaping what they sowed, but we'd never use it in this case.

I guess as a proverb, the phrase is used as a "you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes" kind of way. But when something happens outside of it being a moral choice, it doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Thanks VJB, I would contend that there is a principle that exists outside of Biblical or Christian teachings. More of a cause-and-effect connection. If you have se x with someone without protection, you may get lucky and escape the consequences, but if it's a regular practice, then the philosophy of reaping what you sow comes calling either with a pregnancy or an STD. The same could be said for mountain climbing without a harness, or tightrope walking without a net.

However, when someone generally tries to live a "clean and responsible" life, and it seems that they are the recipient of more grief than someone else who walks the other side of the street, it does make you wonder why that should be.
 
bobcat said:
However, when someone generally tries to live a "clean and responsible" life, and it seems that they are the recipient of more grief than someone else who walks the other side of the street, it does make you wonder why that should be.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because those on that "other side of the street" are wishing with all their might that they had made better choices? They give grief because they don't like themselves and their choices that *put* them on the other side. (Just a Kateism personal belief) Not very different from "you catch more flies with honey" vs "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"... also opposite meanings but we hear both all the time. Seriously, though, if I've chosen to walk on the "clean and responsible" side, I pay no attention to what others think or say about it.
 
bobcat said:
However, when someone generally tries to live a "clean and responsible" life, and it seems that they are the recipient of more grief than someone else who walks the other side of the street, it does make you wonder why that should be.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have an answer to that. It's a rather complex web, isn't it. What comes to mind is that life simply isn't fair. There are no checks and balances in fate. You don't have to do bad things to have bad things happen. Children born with disabilities, someone hit by a random bullet in a shoot out, But there are some prescribed actions that have bad consequences, and you reap what you sow. A drug dealer getting caught and sent to jail - he's a reaper. The stray bullet guy, he's not.

I think we want to believe there are good and bad people, and that we not only live within the law, but we subscribe to what the law is trying to achieve. What is acceptable is somewhat a societal thing, and we assume most people agree on those values. In reality they don't. They can be evil, they can simply have different ideas, or they could be a reaper plowing through life with the seat of their pants on fire, wondering where it all went wrong. We can control ourselves, and not others.

Fundamentally, life is something that happens, and most of us have some kind of value system. But no two people are alike. Their values may slightly differ, what is acceptable to one isn't to another. Looking for some equitable distribution of bad events, or to avoid them entirely, is folly.

Heck, even our genetics, to an extent, play a role. Some of the best people get cancers, and it's just fate. There is no balance. This seems unjust, and I think leads some into a religious belief - it makes no sense that the world can be unjust, so there must be salvation later on.

Or maybe I need to think on it some more.
 
CallMeKate said:
Perhaps because those on that "other side of the street" are wishing with all their might that they had made better choices? They give grief because they don't like themselves and their choices that *put* them on the other side. (Just a Kateism personal belief) Not very different from "you catch more flies with honey" vs "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"... also opposite meanings but we hear both all the time. Seriously, though, if I've chosen to walk on the "clean and responsible" side, I pay no attention to what others think or say about it.
Click to expand...
I like that you have your own brand of philosophy (Kateism). That's pretty cool.

Maybe I will try a little Bobcatism here. From time to time, you may hear of a religious leader who is living the high life, while the flock is paying tithe that they can ill afford to support that lifestyle. Whether they have any conscience about it, who can say, but it does seem they are reaping what other's have sowed.
 
bobcat said:
If you have se x with someone without protection, you may get lucky and escape the consequences, but if it's a regular practice, then the philosophy of reaping what you sow comes calling either with a pregnancy or an STD. The same could be said for mountain climbing without a harness, or tightrope walking without a net.
Click to expand...
Wait, you can get an STD or even pregnant climbing without a harness, or tightrope walking without a net? 😳
 
VaughanJB said:
Well, I don't have an answer to that. It's a rather complex web, isn't it. What comes to mind is that life simply isn't fair. There are no checks and balances in fate. You don't have to do bad things to have bad things happen. Children born with disabilities, someone hit by a random bullet in a shoot out, But there are some prescribed actions that have bad consequences, and you reap what you sow. A drug dealer getting caught and sent to jail - he's a reaper. The stray bullet guy, he's not.

I think we want to believe there are good and bad people, and that we not only live within the law, but we subscribe to what the law is trying to achieve. What is acceptable is somewhat a societal thing, and we assume most people agree on those values. In reality they don't. They can be evil, they can simply have different ideas, or they could be a reaper plowing through life with the seat of their pants on fire, wondering where it all went wrong. We can control ourselves, and not others.

Fundamentally, life is something that happens, and most of us have some kind of value system. But no two people are alike. Their values may slightly differ, what is acceptable to one isn't to another. Looking for some equitable distribution of bad events, or to avoid them entirely, is folly.

Heck, even our genetics, to an extent, play a role. Some of the best people get cancers, and it's just fate. There is no balance. This seems unjust, and I think leads some into a religious belief - it makes no sense that the world can be unjust, so there must be salvation later on.

Or maybe I need to think on it some more.
Click to expand...
As always, great input. Thank you.
I think it was du Vair who pointed out that often our opinions torment us more than the things themselves.
I suppose that's where the detachment thing comes in. Perhaps we shouldn't be concerned with formulating a good or bad association with things that happen. Life is just life (As you pointed out), and it really makes no sense to try and apply reason when reason isn't involved in the events.

Also, I think it was Aurelius who proposed to stay with first appearances, and add nothing from within yourself - nothing happens to you.
Perhaps that's it.
 
OldFeller said:
Wait, you can get an STD or even pregnant climbing without a harness, or tightrope walking without a net? 😳
Click to expand...
Lol, yes, granted it's a precarious way of going about gettin' busy with your partner, but the risk isn't just from falling, so remember that if you are thinking about taking your love making to lofty heights.
 
bobcat said:
We've all heard the phrase that "You reap what you sow", with the general understanding that undesirable consequences are the natural outcome of bad behavior, and it seems rather sound. Somewhat similar to Karma.

By the same token, we recognize that bad things can happen to good people and good things can happen to bad people. You may even be one of those good people who has endured a lot of grief, and yet you know others who are basically not so good, and they seem to prosper, and like the story of Job in the Old Testament, you wonder: "why me"?

Both Senaca and Marcus Aurelius seemed to be in agreement that both death and life, honor and dishonor, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty all happen equally to good men and bad, and therefore should not be considered as either bad or good. They are only perceived that way in the mind, but a good person stays detached from things not under their control, so they don't view them that way.

It seems that both of these principles are at odds, and that there is no appointed guardian of the good man's luggage. But if that is true, then how do we accept the premise that you reap what you sow?
Click to expand...
Your understanding or interpretation of "you reap what you sow" is mistaken. It has nothing to do with getting goodies for doing good things or visa versa. It means simply taking responsibility for your self. For example, if you wisely saved your money then you have enough when you need it. But, if you foolishly spend all your money, you can't complain that you have no money when you need it. The phrase does not mean that if you put money in the poor box it will be there for you when you need it. That expectation is foolish, also. Do good things as you wish, but don't expect any reward for it. This is what the phrase means to me.
 
CallMeKate said:
Perhaps because those on that "other side of the street" are wishing with all their might that they had made better choices? They give grief because they don't like themselves and their choices that *put* them on the other side. (Just a Kateism personal belief) Not very different from "you catch more flies with honey" vs "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"... also opposite meanings but we hear both all the time. Seriously, though, if I've chosen to walk on the "clean and responsible" side, I pay no attention to what others think or say about it.
Click to expand...
I think that's very wise. We can only decide for ourselves what we think the rules should be and try to stay within them.

We know people who smoke and get lung cancer and maybe we think to ourselves, "Consequences have actions," I hate that judgemental phrase. But the truth is people who have never smoked get cancer and some smoke all their lives and die of something else.

For myself, getting back to Kateism, I quit smoking because I didn't want to die while kicking myself for being stupid. Instead I'll probably follow my family tradition and have a stroke. If other people keep smoking for reasons of their own and get cancer, I won't act as though they got what they deserved or call it karma. They may have good reasons why they couldn't give up the habit.

We can only control ourselves. If we believe in God we can turn to him for strength to get through whatever happens, but since we have free will we can't ask him to also give us a life without problems.

Farther along we'll know all about it.
 
Robb.hisself said:
Your understanding or interpretation of "you reap what you sow" is mistaken. It has nothing to do with getting goodies for doing good things or visa versa. It means simply taking responsibility for your self. For example, if you wisely saved your money then you have enough when you need it. But, if you foolishly spend all your money, you can't complain that you have no money when you need it. The phrase does not mean that if you put money in the poor box it will be there for you when you need it. That expectation is foolish, also. Do good things as you wish, but don't expect any reward for it. This is what the phrase means to me.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your input and personal interpretation, but you may want to look it up for further understanding.
reap what you sow
 
"How people treat you is their karma: how you react is yours." -Wayne Dyer

Normally we hear the word "karma" tossed around when some snarky person is expressing satisfaction at someone else's misfortune, but that is not what karma is.

I think the bumper sticker explained it better than religion or anything else, "s**t happens".
 
bobcat said:
We've all heard the phrase that "You reap what you sow", with the general understanding that undesirable consequences are the natural outcome of bad behavior, and it seems rather sound. Somewhat similar to Karma.

By the same token, we recognize that bad things can happen to good people and good things can happen to bad people. You may even be one of those good people who has endured a lot of grief, and yet you know others who are basically not so good, and they seem to prosper, and like the story of Job in the Old Testament, you wonder: "why me"?

Both Senaca and Marcus Aurelius seemed to be in agreement that both death and life, honor and dishonor, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty all happen equally to good men and bad, and therefore should not be considered as either bad or good. They are only perceived that way in the mind, but a good person stays detached from things not under their control, so they don't view them that way.

It seems that both of these principles are at odds, and that there is no appointed guardian of the good man's luggage. But if that is true, then how do we accept the premise that you reap what you sow?
Click to expand...
Well I think that as we journey through our existence we encounter the forces of the Universe that are random, and forces that are ordered. In some matters we have the power to change our fortunes in life, in other concerns the outcome is influenced by forces beyond our control.
 
bobcat said:
Thanks VJB, I would contend that there is a principle that exists outside of Biblical or Christian teachings. More of a cause-and-effect connection. If you have se x with someone without protection, you may get lucky and escape the consequences, but if it's a regular practice, then the philosophy of reaping what you sow comes calling either with a pregnancy or an STD. The same could be said for mountain climbing without a harness, or tightrope walking without a net.

However, when someone generally tries to live a "clean and responsible" life, and it seems that they are the recipient of more grief than someone else who walks the other side of the street, it does make you wonder why that should be.
Click to expand...
Deep post (OP) Bob. I'll have to think about how to answer. Now about sex without protection...even when protection is used, one can catch an STD. One must know how to properly use the protection (condom) . I had to counsel many young men about the proper way to use condoms during my career as a Disease Intervention Specialist with the state's STD program. You'd be surprised how many men don't know how to use a condom properly, some even stating they started out without one, then decided to put one on before climaxing. WTF?!
 
Last edited:
OneEyedDiva said:
Deep post (OP) Bob. I'll have to think about how to answer. Now about sex without protection...even when protection is used, one can catch an STD. One must know how to properly use the protection (condom) . I had to counsel many a young man about the proper way to use condoms as part of my career as a Disease Intervention Specialist in the state's STD department. You'd be surprised how many men don't know how to use a condom properly, some even stating they started out without one, then decided to put one on before climaxing. WTF?!
Click to expand...
Wow, I had no idea about your experience with that sort of thing. I suppose when I was young, there were a lot of things I wasn't all that clear on, and I did take some liberties, but quickly learned how to be smart about it.

Isn't that the blasted irony of the whole thing. Now that I understand a great deal about it, I don't get the opportunity to practice what I've learned (ha ha). Such is life.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top