megasamurai Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I find it hard to really think anyone can follow the Bible's demands on people's emotions. Jesus demands that you love him more than anyone or anything in the world. You can see humans, but not him. If you love a human more than him, you're screwed. I left Christianity partially because I could not meet the emotional demands because I was an idolater no matter how hard I tried. Loving him at all when I couldn't see him was very difficult. I tried self hypnosis to feel love for him but it didn't work. I ended up hating him because he threatened hell for idolatry. I feared him so much. I found love to be an emotion that was near impossible to control. It scarred me. I just want to know, why does Christianity have demands on your emotions on the threat of hell. Believing seems to be way easier than his emotional demands. How do Christians love him?
Galien Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 I had the opposite problem. I loved my construct of god too much. So much I felt personally responsible for jesus dying. I was never scared of god. The church constantly told me that no matter what I felt, when I had depression it was because I was believing the lies of satan instead of the truth of god. They told me because my emotions came from my heart, and my heart was desperately wicked, that I was deceiving myself. I am a person who has always naturally had a lot of empathy and care for people, so this shit is easy for me. I remember when my kid was 12 she asked me how I could love something I could not see. I think that is pretty normal for most people.
megasamurai Posted January 21, 2013 Author Posted January 21, 2013 It depends on the meaning of love. Are you thinking of love as just strong compassion or as emotional intamacy? I could do the former but not the latter. I had more "warm fuzzy feelings" towards them than to Jesus. I felt terrible about what happened to him and pitied him, but that's all I felt, no extreme affection. I feel strong compassion for Ghandi, Martin Luther King and other admirable people, but I wouldn't call that compassion love.
Galien Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 It depends on the meaning of love. Are you thinking of love as just strong compassion or as emotional intamacy? I could do the former but not the latter. I had more "warm fuzzy feelings" towards them than to Jesus. I felt terrible about what happened to him and pitied him, but that's all I felt, no extreme affection. I feel strong compassion for Ghandi, Martin Luther King and other admirable people, but I wouldn't call that compassion love. 1st Corinthians 13 was always my favourite part of the bible, because it talked about the kind of love I felt naturally, so I guess it resonated with me. For me love is about the other person, not about me, is about care for the soul of the other. In the case of Jesus I felt grateful because he took my sin, compassion for what was done to him, guilt for it being my fault, love because he cared for me. I don't really get warm fuzzy feelings.
mymistake Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Emotions are instincts that our brains naturally generate. The Bible turns them into thought crimes if we feel the wrong ones or don't feel the right ones. Emotions don't work that way. We can't make ourselves feel what we don't feel. Trying to repress emotions to obey Christinaity can have some nasty consequenses.
Galien Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Emotions are instincts that our brains naturally generate. The Bible turns them into thought crimes if we feel the wrong ones or don't feel the right ones. Emotions don't work that way. We can't make ourselves feel what we don't feel. Trying to repress emotions to obey Christinaity can have some nasty consequenses. True that. I am strong on love but low on obedience and tolerating bullshit. I got tired of being constantly told everything I felt was wrong, no wonder I was so badly depressed for so long.
megasamurai Posted January 21, 2013 Author Posted January 21, 2013 Is the love Jesus demanded on pain of hell love as in strong compassion (type A love) or love as in emotional affection (type B love)? What if it's type B and people go to hell for loving him by the type A's demands but not type B? How can we tell what kind of love he meant. Love is one of the most ill defined emotions out there because it has about five completely different definitions in the dictionary.
mymistake Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Is the love Jesus demanded on pain of hell love as in strong compassion (type A love) or love as in emotional affection (type B love)? What if it's type B and people go to hell for loving him by the type A's demands but not type B? How can we tell what kind of love he meant. Love is one of the most ill defined emotions out there because it has about five completely different definitions in the dictionary. Being all-powerful seems to make deities emotionally needy. They go through a genocide stage. Next they have anger issues. After that deities are all "do as I say not as I do".
movingon Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 This was a similar thing for me, and definitely a factor in my deconversion. I don't really have an answer to your question though
megasamurai Posted January 21, 2013 Author Posted January 21, 2013 What would the word for love Jesus uses in the Bible be in Greek? Do his words suggest demanding type A or type B love?
Galien Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Is the love Jesus demanded on pain of hell love as in strong compassion (type A love) or love as in emotional affection (type B love)? What if it's type B and people go to hell for loving him by the type A's demands but not type B? How can we tell what kind of love he meant. Love is one of the most ill defined emotions out there because it has about five completely different definitions in the dictionary. To me, love is connection. Doesn't always work both ways though.
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 megasamurai, Galien, (mymistake, reader,) While I'm (still) perusing, let me take a crack at this. megasamurai, let me start by saying that I You seem to me to be heading in a good direction, questioning what is meant by "Love". Let me next say that I am already fairly impressed by Galien: "To me, love is connection". So you know, I have great confidence in my understanding of my metaphysic; and, in fact, I joined this site merely to suggest a reading of "My ~most~ Chereished ~Resource~" (see the thread of that title in the "Lion's den"), in case there might be a one who would Care to Value the book I suggest there. For here, though, the short of it is that there is but one Real (i'dea). The nature of the (_a priori_ complex) i'dea I find best said, "I~am". In this, it seems Jesus was likely the first successful human metaphysician: "I am: the way; the truth; and the life". The author of the book I suggest, one George Holmes Howison, was a professional philosopher, and given his breadth of knowledge over the history of the field, and my own long search before I found Howison, it seems far to say that the succeeding comprehension of metaphysics, if it didn't die with Jesus, died with the Gospeler John. 1800 years of "floundering" before Howison rediscovered success. megasamurai, you opened this thread thus: "I find it hard to really think anyone can follow the Bible's demands on people's emotions. Jesus demands that you love him more than anyone or anything in the world. You can see humans, but not him. If you love a human more than him, you're screwed. I left Christianity partially because I could not meet the emotional demands because I was an idolater no matter how hard I tried." I myself have precious little fondness for the (mis-)teaching of the ... general lot of (so-self-called) "christians". So let me try my hand at putting a clearer spin on my take of "Jesus' (biblical) demands". I'll leave the thoroughgoing analysis and proof of the singular "ideal-reality", or "real-ideality" of "I~am" to Howison, but add that it need must be, as well as _a priori_ complex, _a priori_ plural. Thus, not only do we see Jesus' success in his self-description (my punctuation), "I am: the way; the truth; and the life.", but we see his grander pluralistic success in the likes of his words ~"let them be one, just as we are one. I in you, and you in me. (etc. and etc.)". The point is that not only is this i'dea, "I~am", Real for Jesus, but it is his teaching that you are called to fully realize that it is Real for you as well; but not only that, but that there is no Real besides it! And, what's more, it is eternal (this term "eternal" has a very special metaphysical meaning, and I urge you not to take it in the sense of "forever"), and, yes, forever ultimately incorruptible. In short, self-existent. (Seriously Howison furnishes the logical proof!, as fearful as it is to "accept"!) The big point being, then, if you don't love this i'dea, I~am, you don't love at all, really. You neither love yourself, nor another, nor Jesus, nor God, nor me, nor ... Love is, in it's ultimate logic, then (and resting on the proofs I merely suggest, but don't provide explicitly here), perhaps best given by the suggestion of what is ultimately only a false alternative: "love of life did not deter them from death." To love is to really love life. The only alternative being no real alternative at all, but a preference for a "death" which can never ultimately come to an incorruptible self-existent i'dea. Thus, whatever is the experience of "hell", it is so because there is no undermining self-existence. Furthermore, the justice of such a "hell" is incumbent upon love, merely as self-defense: if there is no escaping the immortality of one's real-ideality, one would hope with all hope that it would be tolerable. And if haters persist in trying to render it intolerable, love would do something to defend ... the repose of loveliness. Thus, not only are the likes of "love is patient, love is kind" pertinent, but, even if at a different extreme, so are "those whom I love I chastise and reprove". To my mind, I think it worth noting, that "love is patient" suggests, perhaps foremost, that one abiding in love can "take a punch". To my mind, "the chirstians" get it all backwords when they lay all their frustrations on, and take all their fury out against, "sinners". God is the one who is capable of taking the punches!!! How is the picture of Jesus' suffering so misinterpreted as to mean that one cannot direct their frustrations towards to one who demonstrated his capacity to handle it, but to, rather, take it out on those who show, perhaps over and over again, that they aren't yet up to that standard?! Didn't Jesus even say, "those who blaspeheme the son of man will be forgiven."? That is, any ignorance or doubt of the nature and qualifications of those abiding in Love, even to the point of outright "blasphemy", is not wholly antithical to "Love"! But, on the otherhand, what can those abiding in Love do with a one who would go so far as to renounce love altogether? To hate his own spirit? Anyway, just to be clear, the suffering of "hell" is eternal suffering, metaphysically speaking, but "hell" itself can not be an eternal abode. Just as well, eternal life is merely eternal life, metaphysically speaking, without an logical absoluteness to ones abiding in such Love forever (though it be quite hard for me to imagine a fall from that state of grace). Anyway, I think "mymistake" here even points out for us a hint of a taste of hell! He said: "Emotions are instincts that our brains naturally generate. The Bible turns them into thought crimes if we feel the wrong ones or don't feel the right ones. Emotions don't work that way. We can't make ourselves feel what we don't feel. Trying to repress emotions to obey Christinaity can have some nasty consequenses." To be sure, it seems certainly no more than "a hint of a taste". But if you follow the logic of his implied faith/e through, you might start to see where it leads. What do you suppose he means by "instincts"? Or "brains"? Or "naturally generate"? I'm quite sure that he'd be unable to acquit himself regarding any of these suggestions. A might arrogant presentation, which would fall apart upon close inspection. mymistake goes on with some things which suggest beginnings worth redeeming; a good time to pursue reproof with patience, qua love. (Also, Galien, I might not that such love between distinct I~am while necessitating "connection", necessitates, concomitantly, distinction, separation; I might suggest that to Love another is to balance those forces in Love.) Anyway, mymistake's rhetoric here is vague enough to permit a more i'deal interpretation of his message than I'm willing to grant him. Thus I'll merely state that what lies behind the vagueness.. it seems to me his faith/e is an unexemined one, perhaps such that he would even refuse to fall it faith/e, but that it comes to rest near "normal". "normal" under the context being, effectively, a philosophic materialist. That is, a long-long way from the burden of success. And without more who would take up their burden, "their cross, daily", the "normal" for the pluralism takes on a "hellish" flavor. Anyway, just to touch upon what I mean by philosophic materialism, it is the explicit or implicit faith/e that "I~am" is a mere (derivative) result of some such "material as" self-existent. If this were the case, the full logical end demands that there is really no "our" whatsoever (in mymistake's message). "our" is a delusion, there is nothing by the unimpeachable progression of the deterministic material. To be sure, there are some philosophic positions short of succeeding i'dealism which try to cut a niche into that, but such niche is maintained only due to lack of thorough rigor, the niche, either way, advocating something less than that self-existence which can be the only true sense in which any such "our" could be vitally maintained. Even today, you might find many examples of hardcore "atheist materialists" who would hold that there is no such i'deal self, no such mind, no such sould or spirit, that could positively affect the inviolate determinism of materi'el. Consciousness itself, they would have it, is but a impotent fallout, a weird attendent, which can do nothing but deceive us into the illusion that we ~matter~. Thus, "hellish" is something I suggest is not terribly unforeign! People amongst us now, perhaps even people you know, have tasted the eternal suffering of hell! In fact, this "turn of phrase", - even, for example, "to hell and back, D.O.A." ;-) , - is itself not-uncommon. While it might be used as a casual exaggeration by some, unwitting of the fact that for others, it really is the best expression they have, one might really find examples of genuine earnestness. Anyway, I think many of the philosophic materialists, particularly the more "intelligent" apologists, while not only overlooking as petty their own gaps in understanding, overlook the affect of their position as being socially "normal". If every it should become, merely by a numerical shift in allegiance, abnormal, the "suffering" should take on the abnormal timber more suggestive of the desperation suggested by the usage in the likes of the bible. For instance, if "death" is not the ultimate end they expect it to be, they will find themselves, then, and immediately, in a significantly different context, for which, it might be safe to presume, their materialism would have left them wholly unprepared. anyway, perhaps to close this, I merely suggest this message of Jesus: "If you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Not only can Howison furnish you the logical rigor of proof to undergird that very "my burden is easy, my yoke is light" faith/e, he can highlight why every other faith/e seems foolishness before it. (And, to boot, no I~am can avoid faith/e; not even "God" in whose i'deal image you are created! ;-) ) do I really want to commit myself to the responsibility inherent in hitting "post" here............... I mean, sure was kinda fun to write it for you's: you's in particular, but.................... ~T
Ravenstar Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Pascal's Wager still stinks even in metaphysical terms. And yes, some people HAVE experienced 'hell on earth'. A lot of people. The Bible's tactics on human feelings is emotional blackmail. It (yup, Jesus too) takes natural human desires and instincts and relegates them to shamefulness. In it's estimation one can not be human and be okay. It's one big guilt trip designed to undermine anything noble in humans... all our care, love, tenderness, and effort and well, anything is considered less than nothing. Shame is one of the most damaging positions in psychology. Jesus' ideas are no more profound than many other thinkers/gurus around the world, and less uplifting than some. (not that I believe for a moment he was more than a regular person, maybe a political/religious rebel, if he even existed) “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Ravenstar, Pascal's Wager still stinks even in metaphysical terms. And yes, some people HAVE experienced 'hell on earth'. A lot of people. I've no idea if you're implying I brought up "Pascal's wager" or not, but I certainly did not. I've noted that no one can avoid faith/e; so that it becomes merely a question of "of which faith/e are you?". And I've noted that a thoroughgoing analysis reveals the only perspective which is not foolish is: I am a self-existent being". (Jesus said, quoting "the old testament", "ye are gods".) The only thing I really said, then, that might hint at anything even remotely resembling Pascal's Wager (which I too think is totally beneath me), was: how do you want to be prepared for what lies in wait for you on the other side of "death"? Keyword being *how*, vis-a-vis You (and your, for better and worse, immortal self-existence). The Bible's tactics on human feelings is emotional blackmail. I might suggest that since there is only this one Real, let me here simplify my verbiage to: the plural society of I~am ::: it only works by mutual imposition. And since it can't not-"work", again the question is *how*. And, what's more, that how is relative to: how do we incorporate all of us, even the ignoble and heinous. It (yup, Jesus too) takes natural human desires and instincts and relegates them to shamefulness. We'd need to get into depth about what you mean to suggest by "natural". (not to mention "instinct"). For my part, feeling the call to own my self-existence, and being so selfish as to want the best for myself, and holding myself up to my own standards in that regard, I've really never experienced "shame". I have heard it's terrible though. A lady named Brene Brown was on PBS one day, in fact, giving a talk about her research into shame. I found myself quite fond of her immediately. Either way, the way I have interpreted the teaching of Jesus (predominantly through the gospeler John; I am very finicky about Paul and the other gospels), is that those who are stuck merely in the (biblical meaning of) "natural" create problems. The problems are not with the flesh, but with the fact that one doesn't enjoy the flesh "in its season", but even when the season isn't right. The call is not (though perhaps if you are a bigger fan of Paul than Jesus ...) that the flesh is rotten, but that life itself demands a degree of eternal responsibility, and without that, there tends to emerge an ever downward spiral of seeking mere counterfeits for the eternal holes in "the flesh", and by so doing further burdening oneself with, I'll let you tell me if shame is the best word, which further inhibits the much needed eternal pursuits, and ... From my perspective, in a responsible (noble) society, responsibilities wouldn't be too heavy a burden, and thank gods that there would be "prosperity" to enjoy at leisure! In it's estimation one can not be human and be okay. It's one big guilt trip designed to undermine anything noble in humans... all our care, love, tenderness, and effort and well, anything is considered less than nothing. It seems you are suffering from your interpretation. Perhaps if you consider the fact that the race of man has, even until now, been "in the dark" about all the big life questions, and then ponder that perchance, at some time in the future, the race of man might, in bulk, be "in the light"... can you imagine the difference that would make? The historical context we are in is still quite a rough beast. In fact, plenty of pessimists find little reason to hope for any such noble/genuine success for the race of man at all. My big point here is merely that some of the message I think you are misinterpreting is rooted in a failure to make a distinction between the vision of "the kingdom", qua "seek first the kingdom, and then all else will be given to you besides", and the vision of the work required merely to get us there. Shame is one of the most damaging positions in psychology. Though I say I've never really felt shame, I still feel I have something of a sense of how much damage it can do. I hope you don't take my criticism as suggesting you are worthy of shame, _per se_. Jesus' ideas are no more profound than many other thinkers/gurus around the world, I'd like to see a proof of this! Please consider taking my suggestion to reading Howison (at some point). and less uplifting than some. many a guru not burdened by an incumbency to responsibility can focus entirely on petty "uplifting". (not that I believe for a moment he was more than a regular person, maybe a political/religious rebel, if he even existed) What, prey-tell is the distinguishing feature between "a regular person" and, whatever you'd say the alternative to that is? Michael Jordan was a regular person? Erwin Schroedinger was a regular person? Jesus said, again, "ye are gods". Regular persons are gods. (Believe it or not, I actually consider you as if you fit that regular bill!) Yet we are each unique, yes? Even "identical twins". The question, then, is what was peculiarly special about this regular god named Jesus? In my estimate, not that there is superficially any apparent reason to make an overly big to-do over "firsts", but it seems he was most likely the first successful metaphysician. Now, behind the surface of such an accomplishment, when stock of taken of what it means for a regular god to attain to such (mere) maturity, it seems quite more likely that it is true that he had to travel thorough never-before-successfully-trodden dump that was the "superphenomenal". Thus, the term "the anointed" seems as fit a description as any. Why nut cut the dude some slack fit particularly to the kind of dude he was, rather than compare him as to your (historically later?) standards of "uplifiting" gurus? “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations whatevv, if we are all gods, and span a whole discordant range, what does Mr. Aurelius offer us? sorry if I sound a bit rude, up well past my bedtime, cheers,
Ravenstar Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Seriously?... you place Jesus above and beyond every other great thinker in history? Obviously you haven't actually read a whole lot of philosophy, or comparative religion. Many of the concepts in the bible were 'borrowed' from other cultures. Read the Egyptian Book of the Dead sometime... it's pretty eye-opening, The Enuma Elish, or Zoroastrianism, the Greek Philosophers, The Law Code of Hammurabi, or the Vedas...(all before Jesus) oops, don't forget the plethora of philosophy from China.. all way before Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years. Jesus is pretty recent, actually. "but it seems he was most likely the first successful metaphysician"... really? how so? what supports that claim? (ignoring all thought before him helps, I guess).. what's the proof? I think he was rather banal mostly, and highly obtuse at times... a Hellenised jew trying to reconcile two very different frames of reference in an atmosphere of the discontent and subjugation of a superstitious insular highly racist tribe with an ego problem and a conquering, more advanced superpower who exposed them to the rest of the known world's philosophies. What is the evidence for this elevating of Jesus? We have tons more evidence that quite a few others actually existed much less that what is attributed to him is leagues above. Let's see: Egyptian religion/philosophy supported the longest lived empire (okay theocracy/monarchy) the world has ever seen, we are still dependent on Greek philosophy - it's the basis of western culture (oh ya - democracy) India too is not based on Jesus.. nope, Hindu/Buddhist philosophy is responsible for that...another of the longest lived cultures on earth, China - another very ancient and long-lived culture NOT based on Jesus philosophy... what did Jesus philosophy give us.. oh ya - the Dark Ages, the crusades, the witch hunts and the Bubonic Plague. marvelous. I don't give a crap about Howison or whoever though, because the only record we have about the person named Jesus and what he may have said or done is from the gospels, and their veracity is in serious question. So anything based on his teachings therefore must accept that the gospels are true and that they are unique. Poppycock. Show me one thing he said that can't be found, in essence, in any other place, spoken by any other great thinker. (quite likely long before he ever lived). (I may read it anyway - because I'm curious like that) and don't talk down to me. You make claims.. back them up. In English. Crikey... it all just comes off sounding like another, "i have the realz truth and you don't 'cause you just aren't interpreting it right, or are too stupid to understand" bullshit. Judaism and christianity are ALL about shame.. shame means that WHO YOU ARE is not okay. Guilt means WHAT YOU DID is not okay. Simple concept. So this great metaphysician said, "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." ... just another way to tell people they are powerless, helpless and unworthy. The Bible is chock full of these messages of shame. It's abhorrent. You do realize that the term EX- christian means we don't place any weight on Jesus, or the scriptures anymore, right?
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Ravenstar, I could be more well-read, it is true. But, alas, I'm at where I'm at. I'm not about to enumerate for you all that I've read thoroughly. All that I've merely sampled. All that I've merely glossed. Whatever. I've read what I've read, and I think I speak with sufficient deference to that which I have not read. If Jesus was not the first successful metaphysician, that would in no way be fatal to my position that he was a successful metaphysician. (to be sure, I think it exceedingly unlikely that you, or anyone, could furnish me evidence that there was a one before him, but, ...). Further, even if there were no such historical person Jesus, that would be in no way fatal that the author of the gospel accorded to John would have captured in fictional character what amounts to the wisdom of a successful metaphysician. Thus the evidence of success at metaphysics, to whomever it shall be properly attributable, stands. To be sure, my estimation is that it would be nearly beyond belief for it to be other than that what it is presented as. I have imagined some really-really out-there scenarios in which I am being played the fool to some extent though. really-really out there is what it takes to keep me "grounded" in my sense of, "how might I be wrong here". Either way, that's precisely why I draw the focus on the deep bass notes of the metaphysics itself. So there is Jesus, and I have to leave room for the gospeler John, - but I specifically leave out Paul, - a long period of "dark ages", as you suggest, and I too have already have myself, and then Howison. Your interests seem quite different. "greatness" of civilization, whatever exactly you Value there, in no way implies any one of them bore a successful metaphysician. You say you don't give a crap about Howison, then demand I back-up my claims. Howison is "my lawyer" here. If you would trounce me, you'll have to go through him (see?: I don't mind being a branch on his vine). If you shall come to think you find an error in Howison's presentation... to be sure, I do have some peripheral arguments against him, where he must play branch to my vine... but if you find a argument against the central points of our position as presented by him, you can come back at me with something of a declaration of the nature and cause of my crime before you, and see if I can/will choose to acquit myself before you. Short of that, my legal brief in response to your summary charge is filed. Like Jay-z said in his song with Dr. Dre and Rick Ross, entitled "3 kings", "I whip the coke, let the lawyer beat the case." If you would like Jesus, or Howison, or me, to play branch to your vine, the option ain't closed. Only, we some badasses, so you 'a have to earn it. You are a vine yourself, to be sure (so you won't go off as if I'm only talking "down" to you, and not "up" as well), so I wonder that you wouldn't want to have more fruit-bearing branches to call your own? ~W~, ~T
Guest GcodeTramplee Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Ravenstar, Seriously?... you place Jesus above and beyond every other great thinker in history? Obviously you haven't actually read a whole lot of philosophy, or comparative religion. Many of the concepts in the bible were 'borrowed' from other cultures. Read the Egyptian Book of the Dead sometime... it's pretty eye-opening, The Enuma Elish, or Zoroastrianism, the Greek Philosophers, The Law Code of Hammurabi, or the Vedas...(all before Jesus) oops, don't forget the plethora of philosophy from China.. all way before Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years. Jesus is pretty recent, actually. "but it seems he was most likely the first successful metaphysician"... really? how so? what supports that claim? (ignoring all thought before him helps, I guess).. what's the proof? I think he was rather banal mostly, and highly obtuse at times... a Hellenised jew trying to reconcile two very different frames of reference in an atmosphere of the discontent and subjugation of a superstitious insular highly racist tribe with an ego problem and a conquering, more advanced superpower who exposed them to the rest of the known world's philosophies. What is the evidence for this elevating of Jesus? We have tons more evidence that quite a few others actually existed much less that what is attributed to him is leagues above. Let's see: Egyptian religion/philosophy supported the longest lived empire (okay theocracy/monarchy) the world has ever seen, we are still dependent on Greek philosophy - it's the basis of western culture (oh ya - democracy) India too is not based on Jesus.. nope, Hindu/Buddhist philosophy is responsible for that...another of the longest lived cultures on earth, China - another very ancient and long-lived culture NOT based on Jesus philosophy... what did Jesus philosophy give us.. oh ya - the Dark Ages, the crusades, the witch hunts and the Bubonic Plague. marvelous. I don't give a crap about Howison or whoever though, because the only record we have about the person named Jesus and what he may have said or done is from the gospels, and their veracity is in serious question. So anything based on his teachings therefore must accept that the gospels are true and that they are unique. Poppycock. Show me one thing he said that can't be found, in essence, in any other place, spoken by any other great thinker. (quite likely long before he ever lived). (I may read it anyway - because I'm curious like that) and don't talk down to me. You make claims.. back them up. In English. Crikey... it all just comes off sounding like another, "i have the realz truth and you don't 'cause you just aren't interpreting it right, or are too stupid to understand" bullshit. Judaism and christianity are ALL about shame.. shame means that WHO YOU ARE is not okay. Guilt means WHAT YOU DID is not okay. Simple concept. So this great metaphysician said, "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." ... just another way to tell people they are powerless, helpless and unworthy. The Bible is chock full of these messages of shame. It's abhorrent. You do realize that the term EX- christian means we don't place any weight on Jesus, or the scriptures anymore, right? oh yea, no I didn't go so far as to think "that the term EX- christian means [yous] don't place any weight...". Who all do you suggest I was to "realize" your "we" implied? It sure seems crazy that you can suggest that everyone here self-identifying as "EX- christian" would place precisely no weight on the words of the biblical scriptures. Crazy to think that your angst would go so far as to have you placing precisely no weight on "I am" merely because you hold a grudge against... Would you really choose to be a "no one" so recklessly? (To be sure, the biblical scriptures also uses the turn of phrase "no one", so I wonder what your out would be?) (the biblical scriptures also suggests that everyone will be held to account for their petty talk, so if I merely highlight how petty talk can might get you in a bind, ...) Anyway, just to be sure, there is more to "scripture" than the bible alone: ~"all scripture is useful, either for... or for... or for..."-bible Besides all these music video scriptures I Value, and for which I have only just hinted in my time here; I also find, for example, a lot of good sitcom scriptures too. And even, though I don't trust 'em much past the surface, a lot of good commercials scriptures too. I suppose you'd rather forsake any care of "having ears to hear", just because the bible scriptures already... Ravenstar, now I'm really up past my bed time, but I hope that I've suggested to you something of that "(mere) 'fulfillment'" I mentioned in my opening post, in "my" thread. If you ain't wanna partake... But I am intending something of an assistance toward you, even vis-a-vis "building up the church". If you'd qualify yourself to be able to contribute meaningfully to the direction we take, ... but if you have no fear that the "weeds" which were planted in "wheat field" will be plucked, bundled, and burned come harvest, ... Seriously, give my lawyers' briefs some consideration. Or at least some cautious/respectful deference in accord with your own limitations. aight?, ~T
Galien Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 some people HAVE experienced 'hell on earth'. A lot of people. And I am one of them. As if after that I have ever been scared of some hell.
Galien Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Or at least some cautious/respectful deference in accord with your own limitations. I know this was not directed to me, but do you really think any of us do deference anymore after christianity? You need to get that most of us are sick of talking heads telling us how it is. 1
mymistake Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Anyway, I think "mymistake" here even points out for us a hint of a taste of hell! He said: "Emotions are instincts that our brains naturally generate. The Bible turns them into thought crimes if we feel the wrong ones or don't feel the right ones. Emotions don't work that way. We can't make ourselves feel what we don't feel. Trying to repress emotions to obey Christinaity can have some nasty consequenses." To be sure, it seems certainly no more than "a hint of a taste". My words have nothing to do with the myth of hell. But if you follow the logic of his implied faith/e through, you might start to see where it leads. There is no implied faith, not even a faith with a fancy slash and and extra "e". What do you suppose he means by "instincts"? Or "brains"? Or "naturally generate"? It's not complicated. I uesed the standard meanings for those words. Would you like dictionary definitions? I'm quite sure that he'd be unable to acquit himself regarding any of these suggestions. A might arrogant presentation, which would fall apart upon close inspection. Why are you making personal attacks? Anyway, mymistake's rhetoric here is vague enough to permit a more i'deal interpretation of his message than I'm willing to grant him. I figured if there was any confusion that people would ask. I'm happy to answer questions. Thus I'll merely state that what lies behind the vagueness.. it seems to me his faith/e is an unexemined one, perhaps such that he would even refuse to fall it faith/e, but that it comes to rest near "normal". "normal" under the context being, effectively, a philosophic materialist. That is, a long-long way from the burden of success. And without more who would take up their burden, "their cross, daily", the "normal" for the pluralism takes on a "hellish" flavor. What faith? You presume way too much. Anyway, just to touch upon what I mean by philosophic materialism, it is the explicit or implicit faith/e that "I~am" is a mere (derivative) result of some such "material as" self-existent. If this were the case, the full logical end demands that there is really no "our" whatsoever (in mymistake's message). "our" is a delusion, there is nothing by the unimpeachable progression of the deterministic material. Would you kindly stop speaking for me. It's rude. Either shape up or I will write you off as a troll.
mymistake Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Seriously?... you place Jesus above and beyond every other great thinker in history? Obviously you haven't actually read a whole lot of philosophy, or comparative religion. Many of the concepts in the bible were 'borrowed' from other cultures. Read the Egyptian Book of the Dead sometime... it's pretty eye-opening, The Enuma Elish, or Zoroastrianism, the Greek Philosophers, The Law Code of Hammurabi, or the Vedas...(all before Jesus) oops, don't forget the plethora of philosophy from China.. all way before Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years. Pun-Pun, the Lord of Kobolds, is a much greater thinker than Jesus Christ. Pun-Pun has a base score of over 10,000 in all of his attributes plus Pun-Pun has over four times as many divine ranks as Christ. A major deity just can't compete with an overdeity. There is no comparison. And if we limited ourselves only to thinkers who actually existed then Christ falls short as well. and don't talk down to me. You make claims.. back them up. In English. Quite
Ravenstar Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 I am not a strict materialist. I've read John (and studied the rest of the Bible quite extensively), I'm not impressed. There's some good stuff there... but it's just a text, written by men (and no one is actually sure who was the actual author). I know the history of the Bible... and I can not accept it as anything divine. I see no evidence for a personal god either... a great source? maybe... but maybe that's just the nature of reality and how it organizes according to the decay of the original state. The jury is out on that one. I don't do 'faith'. I think faith is insanity. I do well-considered trust... and logic and rational thought, as best I can. I demand reason and evidence for anything I am going to place my trust in. My metaphysical leanings are, by their very nature, my own intuitions, experience and imaginings and I am very cogent of the fact that I have no real evidence for them. On some days I consider them nothing more than flights of fancy. Others I'm not so sure - but the beginning of wisdom is to accept that there is so much more to learn...(humility) I certainly would not assert my inner sense as truth, to another. That is the height of arrogance and elitism. My knowledge base is very broad, (not scholarly though, I am a dilettante I admit)... and I've studied more metaphysical concepts/disciplines than I can easily recall. From one of these I have learned that "As above, so below"... which means that any transcendent truth ought to have it's mirror here on the physical plane. Or as my grandpa would say - "the proof is in the pudding". If something has no effect on all planes then it is false, or useless. Adversely... psychic phenomena can distract from the reality of the all. It's a paradox but it's also truth. I've also learned that at the heart of reality there is 'no time, no space, no self' - that is experiential - that which defines the self dissolves and expands into the void until it encompasses all - THAT is the great 'I AM". Personality is only a vehicle, a tool for experiencing events - a 'bracketing' if you will. If one believes in an immortal beingness outside of the purely material then it is apparent after exploration and consideration that personality, individuality, is a construct of consciousness bound intrinsically to physical manifestation, nothing more. The 'self' itself is an illusion, albeit a very useful one. As far as my use of 'we'.. I may be outside of my bounds to speak for others - but I know them pretty well, and I am sure they would correct me if I tread on their boundaries. Actually I count on it.... in all my time here and all the threads I have yet to see any regular member (except Thumbelina and a few hit and run visitors) who gives a crap what the Bible has to say, except to criticize it and rightly so. That's one of the main reasons we are here - we found the Bible and the religion(s) around it... lacking, for want of a stronger expression. Quoting scripture won't get you far here... I (we) don't care what the Bible says. However, there are lively discussions here about other forms of spirituality and philosophy, mostly very respectful, and I get a lot out of reading and participating in those discussions. There are some very wise and truly interesting, well-read and thoughtful people here. This is our safe place... and our main purpose (please correct me guys, if I am wrong) is to support those leaving christianity and help each other as we create a new life for ourselves. I may add the Personalism philosophies to my reading list... have to get through Nietzsche first and a couple of others I haven't gotten to. There are some interesting developments in eastern personalism I'd like to look at. There's a correlation to Taoism that seems kind of neat. ... there was something else about honey, and vinegar.. 1
Ravenstar Posted January 23, 2013 Posted January 23, 2013 Seriously?... you place Jesus above and beyond every other great thinker in history? Obviously you haven't actually read a whole lot of philosophy, or comparative religion. Many of the concepts in the bible were 'borrowed' from other cultures. Read the Egyptian Book of the Dead sometime... it's pretty eye-opening, The Enuma Elish, or Zoroastrianism, the Greek Philosophers, The Law Code of Hammurabi, or the Vedas...(all before Jesus) oops, don't forget the plethora of philosophy from China.. all way before Jesus by hundreds if not thousands of years. Pun-Pun, the Lord of Kobolds, is a much greater thinker than Jesus Christ. Pun-Pun has a base score of over 10,000 in all of his attributes plus Pun-Pun has over four times as many divine ranks as Christ. A major deity just can't compete with an overdeity. There is no comparison. And if we limited ourselves only to thinkers who actually existed then Christ falls short as well. >and don't talk down to me. You make claims.. back them up. In English. Quite I want the "Book of Pun-Pun!"... I have been deceived! Let me follow you Oh Great Overdeity! (does Pun-Pun have outrageous break damage limits?)
Recommended Posts