Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beth · 04-10-2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
debbie, self love in and of itself is morally nuetral. i think, in the biblical context, it was meant to mean the things we do to tend to our own needs. and how that tends to be something we do automatically regardless of how those needs are percieved by the outside world.
in other words, the person who cuts themselves due to a self loathing sees to his own need for self destruction. in that way he ultimately loves himself enough to seek relief in self mutilation.

i define self love this way to make sense of a commandment that i believe is universal regardless of one's mental state. i mean it must be applicable to those with self esteam issues as well as sociopaths like me.

I tend to agree in some sense.

Queen of Swords · 04-10-2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Radorth
Well I guess that pretty much negates the comments about spurly,

I'm confused - who commented about spurly?

I have to confess, however, that I can't help liking spurly a bit. Although not if he bumps up any more old threads!

Mageth · 04-10-2003, 09:59 AM

Pointed question # 2: IF SO, HOW IS IT WE SHOULD NOT IMITATE HIS SARCASM AND CONDEMNATION OF UNBELIEVERS?

Well, there's Matt 7:12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

So unless you claim that Jesus' sarcasm and condemnation was an attempt to get the same in return (in other words, Jesus was leading them to sin), following Jesus' teaching would seem to preclude you from such behavior as you would not want done to you.

Radorth · 04-10-2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Why is necessary to do any comparisons?

I'm not asking for a comparison. Just a fact or reference.

Quote:

Is this something Christians are encouraged to do?

No, we merely ask you to live by the same standards, demands for facts and rationales you employ. (not that you are capable of it though you claim so)

Quote:

But just for the record, a Christian once called me a "fat unemployed lesbian who couldn't catch herself a husband". I don't think anything measures up to that

You should probably get out more, but no one here has called you that, so untill you post Magus' insults, we have little to go on.

Quote:

The point is not Jesus's character. The point is what Jesus told his followers to do, and what a small subset of his followers actually do.

Well good. I'm glad we cleared that up. You apparently disagree with Ashaman though. (I'm afraid "apparently" is the operative word for some reason).

Quote:

I don't know. Did Jesus say that one should imitate him, or perhaps his father, who is him?

Eh? I can see why you would avoid a question which tells us what's really going on here.

Quote:

I believe the worst of Jesus's sarcasm was directed towards the hypocrites, the scribes and Pharisees. In other words, the people who pretended to be holy, but weren't. Please feel free to correct me with biblical quotes, though.

That's fairly accurate, although I find a negligible difference between them and anyone who pretends to a holiness they do not have. I do hope no one will accuse me of that after I've honestly referred to people here as "fellow hypocrites." One can not imagine the Pharisees doing that.

Oh wait. I know. It's all part of my "strategy." (Or people just do not understand what I'm about at all)

Quote:

Whom are you addressing here, Magus?

No, all those who start threads and make comments directed at their fellow hypocrites, which is clearly the case here.

Rad

Radorth · 04-10-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

So unless you claim that Jesus' sarcasm and condemnation was an attempt to get the same in return (in other words, Jesus was leading them to sin), following Jesus' teaching would seem to preclude you from such behavior as you would not want done to you.

Of course in my case, it's already been done to me by some, as anyone can tell by the extreme variations in the tone of my responses. That is why I can say I am merely holding up mirrors. Those who don't act holier-than-thou never have to look in one, nor do they ever hear personal or cynical comments from me.

The question arises whether, if I would be less sarcastic, I would hear less sarcasm, but actually I don't mind thoughtful sarcasm. A fellow named "Skeptic" once roasted me on another forum, and I never laughed so hard at myself. Some of Tercel's and Sabine's comments would have a mentally healthy skeptic rolling on the floor IMO. They do put me to shame somethimes, I admit. I marvel they were left off the list above.

Well maybe I don't. They tend to tell the truth regardless of how many friends they might lose.

Rad

braces_for_impact · 04-10-2003, 10:29 AM

Radorth said:

Quote:

Well no. We've just heard how there are no virtually no atheists in prison, so one would expect them to live up to a higher standard of holiness than Christians who apparently fill American prisons. Of course the whole idea of comparing holiness is foolish as we are all rather fragile fellow hypocrites by any rational and fair standard.

Personally, I couldn't care less what you have discussed in some other thread. Nor could I care what the predominant religion (or lack thereof) is in the prison system. What I do care about is your basis for morality. Theists often set themselves apart from the world with god as their source of superior morality. Yet this superior morality rarely seems to show through his followers. Perhaps you are following as Jesus instructed you to do. You will notice in my original post I said Jesus was an ideal . I said this because Jesus takes turns in the NT being kind and forgiving, and wrathful and condescending. Therefore this Jesus that everyone seems to think is all loving must be an ideal to look up to or to imitate.

Quote:

I disagree and I think those who see us all as pretty much equal and frail, and very precious in the eyes of God can be said to love themselves and others equally. Meanwhile those who create threads just to knock others personally and question their motives have little or no ability to love others equally. It shows in their posts.

Being equal and frail in the eyes of god is not loving. It is a measuring tool, a standard you are attempting to use to put everyone on equal footing. This is not love. You do not feel real, honest, actual love for me or any others on this board. As you say, it is easy to see if there is love in someone's posts.

Btw, I see starting a thread in a public forum with the topic about a specific person as not all that disrespectful. It is public, and if one were to feel that they were being singled out they can respond in kind to defend themselves. But I also noticed that in this thread, no names were mentioned.

Radorth · 04-10-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Personally, I couldn't care less what you have discussed in some other thread.

Really? Isn't this whole thread about what supposedly unamed people have said in other threads, and whether large classes of people are hypocritical?

Quote:

Nor could I care what the predominant religion (or lack thereof) is in the prison system. What I do care about is your basis for morality. Theists often set themselves apart from the world with god as their source of superior morality. Yet this superior morality rarely seems to show through his followers. Perhaps you are following as Jesus instructed you to do.

I've been one of the first to admit I cannot come close to obeying the sermon on the Mount, but at least I don't blow it off as a standard, or imagine I can obey it. This fact alone makes some of the comments above absurd. And yes my name was mentioned, and this thread has me as one of it's primary subjects. It is truly hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Quote:

I said this because Jesus takes turns in the NT being kind and forgiving, and wrathful and condescending. Therefore this Jesus that everyone seems to think is all loving must be an ideal to look up to or to imitate.

I'm afraid I can make no sense of this comment. Do you mean it is right to imitate Jesus or not? Perhaps you could rephrase it.

Quote:

You do not feel real, honest, actual love for me or any others on this board.

That's barf. You cannot possibly know that. That's like asserting Jesus didn't love the Pharisees just because he spoke to them as he did. I think he hoped some of them would wake up and see their hypocrisy, and it seems that Nicodemus did so at least.

Quote:

But I also noticed that in this thread, no names were mentioned.

Are you seriously asserting that, after your above sweeping assertion about me personally, that I am not necessarily a subject of this thread?

How inane and pretentious would that be?

Rad

Mageth · 04-10-2003, 11:02 AM

Of course in my case, it's already been done to me by some, as anyone can tell by the extreme variations in the tone of my responses. That is why I can say I am merely holding up mirrors.

I don't see that (holding up mirrors, which I assume you mean as a form of retaliatory action) as part of Jesus' "Do unto others..." recommendation, nor do I see it in the rest of Jesus' teaching. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps, as you say, you just can't come close to obeying the sermon on the mount.

Radorth · 04-10-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Being equal and frail in the eyes of god is not loving. It is a measuring tool, a standard you are attempting to use to put everyone on equal footing.

I guess admitting there is a 2 x 4 in your own eye is unloving. I'm not using a "tool" or "attempting" to do anything. We are all very much equal in the eyes of God, equally sinful, and equally valuable and precious to him.

Take a Zen course, and you'll see how a loving God would see us thus. The early Christians were first to see God as he was, to have the "veil" between them and God lifted, as we know from reading Acts. They were first to behold "the goodness and severity" of God in full measure, the first to have his gifts showered upon them in spite of their faults, to see that nobdy had a prayer of obeying the Law as Jesus preached it, to see that God really was no respecter of persons, that slaves were brothers and sisters, and ought to be treated so, the first to see that the atonement removed every barrier to a personal relationship with God regardless of past failings or good works. They were so awed by this revelation that they "shared all things in common" and this new relationship with God and each other moved one Roman commentator to remark "See how these Christians love one another!" They also "contined in the.... fellowship of the apostles" themselves who knew they were but fishermen and "the least of all saints."

You don't believe it? Who cares? I do, and it is how I see a God of love- in the true egalitarianism which his Spirit engenders. And I might say I have found the churches which have a mixture of all races and worldly positions to be the only ones where his Spirit is in control. John Arnot has a New York Supreme Court judge sitting next to the dregs of the earth in his church. We have ex-gang members sitting next to old ladies in some L.A churches. We see this love, equality and tolerance in the preaching of Whitefield and Finney and all the great revival preachers. We see it in Oberlin College founders graduating black women when the "liberal" Harvard never dreamed of doing so.

It's just historical fact. Get over it. You don't know what you are talking about.

Rad

Mageth · 04-10-2003, 11:39 AM

Take a Zen course, and you'll see how a loving God would see us thus. The early Christians were first to see God as he was...

That's interesting, because the roots of Zen can be traced to long before the Christian era. For example, there's the Vigyan Bahairava and Sochanda Tantra, both written about 4000 years ago, and the Malini Vijaya Tantra, written maybe a thousand years before that. The I Ching is over 3000 years old, and the Tao Teh Ching over 2000.

So did Xianity borrow from Zen writings?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2003, 09:56 AM	#32
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Radorth Well I guess that pretty much negates the comments about spurly, I'm confused - who commented about spurly? I have to confess, however, that I can't help liking spurly a bit. Although not if he bumps up any more old threads!

04-10-2003, 09:59 AM	#33
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Pointed question # 2: IF SO, HOW IS IT WE SHOULD NOT IMITATE HIS SARCASM AND CONDEMNATION OF UNBELIEVERS? Well, there's Matt 7:12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. So unless you claim that Jesus' sarcasm and condemnation was an attempt to get the same in return (in other words, Jesus was leading them to sin), following Jesus' teaching would seem to preclude you from such behavior as you would not want done to you.

04-10-2003, 11:02 AM	#38
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Of course in my case, it's already been done to me by some, as anyone can tell by the extreme variations in the tone of my responses. That is why I can say I am merely holding up mirrors. I don't see that (holding up mirrors, which I assume you mean as a form of retaliatory action) as part of Jesus' "Do unto others..." recommendation, nor do I see it in the rest of Jesus' teaching. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps, as you say, you just can't come close to obeying the sermon on the mount.

04-10-2003, 11:39 AM	#40
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Take a Zen course, and you'll see how a loving God would see us thus. The early Christians were first to see God as he was... That's interesting, because the roots of Zen can be traced to long before the Christian era. For example, there's the Vigyan Bahairava and Sochanda Tantra, both written about 4000 years ago, and the Malini Vijaya Tantra, written maybe a thousand years before that. The I Ching is over 3000 years old, and the Tao Teh Ching over 2000. So did Xianity borrow from Zen writings?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.