|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 14:58:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I was mocking the term, get it? You say the source of evil is the "self". What is the source of the "self"?Thought. Krishnamurti said that the self is created by thought. Do you have an argument against that? sree has you there. laughter needs to clarify his question.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 15:03:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I was mocking the term, get it? You say the source of evil is the "self". What is the source of the "self"?Thought. Krishnamurti said that the self is created by thought. Do you have an argument against that? Not one that refutes, only one that colors it: just that it's too simplistic, as evil involves an entanglement between thought and emotion and emotion involves an entanglement between self and Self. But ok, so, thought is the source of evil, let's go with that. What is the source of thought?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 15:09:45 GMT -5
You need to brush up on your Calvin and your Augustine. All of Protestantism and the Catholic Church has as its basis that a newborn baby is born in sin. So in a western Christian family, a baby is seen as a person who is lost and separated from God, and this will be forever unless the child or young person or adult gets ~saved~. Now, the route to this is different for different denominations and is different in the Catholic Church. You are very familiar with the route of the Catholic Church, I am not. But to treat a child as if it is separated from God and a sinner from day one, and needs to be guided to the truth, that's what is monstrous. That's the definition of original sin. Look at Calvin for Protestantism. Look at Augustine for the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church barely tolerates Augustine. And that's what our whole society is built on. Monstrous. Now you see why atheists think Christians are weird. And sree, from earlier, a few weeks ago, you asked me why I was against the church, that's why. Original sin is not just straying from God's will. From a western Christian's perspective, it means everything you do is based on wrongness, unless and until you get saved. All this is where the shame you wrote about comes from. Children are brought up in shame, monstrous. Now, the teachings of Jesus and he himself, almost nothing to do with the western church. Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. But Christians think that when they die they are going to shake hands with God, if not God certainly Jesus Christ. So their whole world is built on a fallacy, imagination. I'm not arguing for original sin, I'm arguing against it. I've already linked Calvin's view. I was raised under Calvin's view, I heard it every Sunday, for at least 10 years. Yes, it's nonsense. If you merely read the words of Jesus you see it's nonsense. Calvin's Modification of Augustine's > Doctrine< of Original Sin. Scroll down to the Introduction, read the first 2 & 1/2 paragraphs. That's the collective unconscious of western society.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 15:13:47 GMT -5
Thought. Krishnamurti said that the self is created by thought. Do you have an argument against that? sree has you there. laughter needs to clarify his question. put down the pom-pom's kid, this one's over yer paygrade. Did "Western man" invent shame? Does "Western man" have a monopoly on shame? What you wrote here: Western society is built upon the assumption of original sin. Augustine's concept of original sin in not based on scripture. Children should be treasured. Instead there is an unconscious bias that children are tainted with sin, even from their birth. Shame is the source of a great deal of suffering, shame from the parent or caregiver not accepting the child just they way they are. Most of it is subconscious processing, but it's there. Shame comes from not accepting the child, trying to *~*correct*~* a child which does not need correcting, just loved and accepted. I didn't know where my self-hate came from. I explored to move past it. I found a route to separate from it. In the process, years, I think I came closer to the why. It's basically in the western collective unconscious. (IMO) .. it's expresses some insight but it mixes the territory with the map. The belief system of someone like Augustine is bound to be influential, but he's as much describing what he is seeing as he is laying the groundwork for conditioning. The instinct to shelter and nurture a newborn is far too strong for a philosopher to kill altogether. That we see some people acting against that instinct and perpetuating a cycle of abuse pretty much proves Augustine's point, and the eightfold path is all about right and wrong, after all.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 15:15:04 GMT -5
sree doesn't have ASPD. He left the world by leaving the world. sdp basically left the world while in the world. Until I was about 42-45 I wasn't happy that I couldn't fit in. Almost imperceptibly, along in there, I realized I was happy not fitting in, it didn't matter. But what I don't understand, about sree, I always had compassion for people, misguided people, ordinary people. I don't understand how sree sees people basically as s**t, contaminated. This is also I'm sure what satch sees. How do you know? I don't know. He life seems to be a choice he has made. People with ASPD don't get a choice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 15:19:45 GMT -5
sree has you there. laughter needs to clarify his question. put down the pom-pom's kid, this one's over yer paygrade. Did "Western man" invent shame? Does "Western man" have a monopoly on shame? What you wrote here: Western society is built upon the assumption of original sin. Augustine's concept of original sin in not based on scripture. Children should be treasured. Instead there is an unconscious bias that children are tainted with sin, even from their birth. Shame is the source of a great deal of suffering, shame from the parent or caregiver not accepting the child just they way they are. Most of it is subconscious processing, but it's there. Shame comes from not accepting the child, trying to *~*correct*~* a child which does not need correcting, just loved and accepted. I didn't know where my self-hate came from. I explored to move past it. I found a route to separate from it. In the process, years, I think I came closer to the why. It's basically in the western collective unconscious. (IMO) .. it's expresses some insight but it mixes the territory with the map. The belief system of someone like Augustine is bound to be influential, but he's as much describing what he is seeing as he is laying the groundwork for conditioning. The instinct to shelter and nurture a newborn is far too strong for a philosopher to kill altogether. That we see some people acting against that instinct and perpetuating a cycle of abuse pretty much proves Augustine's point, and the eightfold path is all about right and wrong, after all. Augustine thought he saw original sin in scripture. He didn't. He based what he taught on a misconception of scripture, not what he observed in life. My sentences are going to get shorter.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 15:21:02 GMT -5
Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. But Christians think that when they die they are going to shake hands with God, if not God certainly Jesus Christ. So their whole world is built on a fallacy, imagination. I'm not arguing for original sin, I'm arguing against it. I've already linked Calvin's view. I was raised under Calvin's view, I heard it every Sunday, for at least 10 years. Yes, it's nonsense. If you merely read the words of Jesus you see it's nonsense. Calvin's Modification of Augustine's > Doctrine< of Original Sin. Scroll down to the Introduction, read the first 2 & 1/2 paragraphs. That's the collective unconscious of western society. You're arguing against a philosopher's version of original sin. I didn't offer you a philosopher's version. I would be willing to bet that even to this day most lay Christians don't know and don't care who either Augusting or Calvin were or what they had to say. As far as the collective unconscious goes, it's an interesting question as to what degree these philosophies were a reflection of what the philosophers observed versus their influence on the future of it. But it's ultimately TMT. Every concept has two sides, and as a spinning yin-yang symbol illustrates, a hypermind can and will eventually make one side into the other. Over and over. Pushing the rock up the hill. It falls down. Repeat.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 15:22:39 GMT -5
put down the pom-pom's kid, this one's over yer paygrade. Did "Western man" invent shame? Does "Western man" have a monopoly on shame? What you wrote here: .. it's expresses some insight but it mixes the territory with the map. The belief system of someone like Augustine is bound to be influential, but he's as much describing what he is seeing as he is laying the groundwork for conditioning. The instinct to shelter and nurture a newborn is far too strong for a philosopher to kill altogether. That we see some people acting against that instinct and perpetuating a cycle of abuse pretty much proves Augustine's point, and the eightfold path is all about right and wrong, after all. Augustine thought he saw original sin in scripture. He didn't. He based what he taught on a misconception of scripture, not what he observed in life. My sentences are going to get shorter. That's why people use metaphor. You know, like the "fig leaf"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 15:31:30 GMT -5
I don't know. He life seems to be a choice he has made. People with ASPD don't get a choice. Correct.You keep putting his life into the framework of your own. If you actually lived his life for a month you'd have a very different picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 15:39:12 GMT -5
You need to brush up on your Calvin and your Augustine. All of Protestantism and the Catholic Church has as its basis that a newborn baby is born in sin. So in a western Christian family, a baby is seen as a person who is lost and separated from God, and this will be forever unless the child or young person or adult gets ~saved~. Now, the route to this is different for different denominations and is different in the Catholic Church. You are very familiar with the route of the Catholic Church, I am not. But to treat a child as if it is separated from God and a sinner from day one, and needs to be guided to the truth, that's what is monstrous. That's the definition of original sin. Look at Calvin for Protestantism. Look at Augustine for the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church barely tolerates Augustine. And that's what our whole society is built on. Monstrous. Now you see why atheists think Christians are weird. And sree, from earlier, a few weeks ago, you asked me why I was against the church, that's why. Original sin is not just straying from God's will. From a western Christian's perspective, it means everything you do is based on wrongness, unless and until you get saved. All this is where the shame you wrote about comes from. Children are brought up in shame, monstrous. Now, the teachings of Jesus and he himself, almost nothing to do with the western church. Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 16:09:21 GMT -5
Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. And I'm saying that's one interpretation, a philosopher's interpretation. The philosopher's interpretation can be defended intellectually based on a vision of "Christ" that is an interconnected set of parts. There's also an emotional appeal that's possible: the innocent isn't born a sinner, but their sinning is an eventuality. That's not my belief (although I do discern threads of relative truth woven in), I'm just 'splainin' it. I say rather, "God falls into her own dream" in complete innocence, and the philosophers know not what they do. Even the new-ager's who base their beliefs on Hinduism aren't free of this TMT, as they argue that you do actually choose to be born.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:22:18 GMT -5
Western society? What the hell is that? Do you mean all white people? Words have meanings. If you want me to engage you in a serious inquiry, you need to stop speaking like a politician pushing false narratives. There were many great thinkers among white people whose philosophies have fundamental impacts on western cultural mores. Even our cowboy culture of America was inspired by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Emerson, Locke, William James. Judging from their contributions to the writing of the US Constitution, there was hardly anyone among them who seemed burdened by original sin.
I would like to see your argument.
I don't expect you to read > this<, but scroll down to the Introduction. Read the first 2 & 1/2 paragraphs. The key words are the total depravity of man, and permeates the whole world. Those exist in a very real way as Jung's collective unconscious in western society. Some men emphasize the goodness of the Bible and exercise it in their lives, even Jefferson, who cut out the parts of the NT he thought didn't belong (Jefferson was undoubtedly on the autistic spectrum, undoubtedly had Asperger's Syndrome, the political correctness people have eliminated that name, stupid). William James is an absolute genius. Most people don't know that he wrote from his own perspective, his own (hidden) experiences. Emerson was a genius, Locke was a genius. Lincoln saved the US, without him we would be 2 countries. But still, on the whole, the idea of man's depravity permeates western society. I will send you a copy of my book when it comes out. I read your pdf article.
Consider this statement: "...sin is not merely accidental or contingent, but is a corruption of human nature because of the positive propensity of the will towards evil".
Is this corruption of human nature a peculiarity of western society?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 16:31:43 GMT -5
I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. And I'm saying that's one interpretation, a philosopher's interpretation. The philosopher's interpretation can be defended intellectually based on a vision of "Christ" that is an interconnected set of parts. There's also an emotional appeal that's possible: the innocent isn't born a sinner, but their sinning is an eventuality. That's not my belief (although I do discern threads of relative truth woven in), I'm just 'splainin' it. I say rather, "God falls into her own dream" in complete innocence, and the philosophers know not what they do. Even the new-ager's who base their beliefs on Hinduism aren't free of this TMT, as they argue that you do actually choose to be born. Yeah.. yeah, that's what I hoped for. Thanks By the bolded do you mean an idea of Christ, taken from varying descriptions?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 16:37:34 GMT -5
Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them. I thought that the concept of Original Sin, meant that a baby was separated from God, by birth. Yes, the baby is "separated from God by birth".
In an earlier post, I recounted my observation of a 6 year old boy and his father at the golf driving range. Seems to me the kid had split off from his dad the way an amoebic cell reproduces by splitting itself into two amoebas. Same sinful protoplasm. Chip off the old block.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 16:37:58 GMT -5
I don't know. He life seems to be a choice he has made. People with ASPD don't get a choice. Correct.You keep putting his life into the framework of your own. If you actually lived his life for a month you'd have a very different picture. No, I'm going by his words, what he posts. Last sentence, correct.
|
|