Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:28 am

Greta
Nick, IMO all any of us do is is the best they know how at the time. The ideas of theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics, pagans and so on have many commonalities due to our common biology and existential situation.
Agreed. The Beast consisting of a myriad of opinions does the best it can at the time. Hypocrisy has become a natural part of the Beast so nothing more can be expected than what is all too painfully obvious in the world.
So, nowadays I try hard to understand what key points people are trying to get across rather than worrying about detail. To do that, sometimes I need to translate into my kind of language, and this is the case with your ideas.
OK, you want to be an expert on opinions. Nothing wrong there.
To deal with the second part of your post first, I see "sin" as our atavistic animal nature - our greed, lust, aggression, anger, vengefulness, cruelty, and so forth. Freud called this base evolved nature the Id, Jung termed it the Shadow (Plato would have approved). It is a lifetime challenge to maintain control over one's more unhelpful base impulses.
We disagree here. As I understand it, the definition of sin is “missing the mark.” In other words sin doesn’t exist without an aim – the attraction to become oneself. Second, I don’t believe we are born with the negative qualities you’ve described. They are learned reactions based on pride and vanity unfortunately often dominating our lives.

Society wants us to outwardly maintain control but seekers of truth have learned that they must inwardly welcome the contradiction so as to receive help from above leading to reconcilition of our higher and lower natures. From the article:
In one of these exchanges, Jacob articulates to Jerry the central premise of the book itself:
The struggle to exist, to not disappear in this moment, is the advancing root of the struggle to exist throughout the whole passage of time. We need to help each other in this struggle. You by asking, I by struggling to respond. This is the law of love, which rules the universe.
In another, reminiscent of Alfred Kazin’s beautiful case for embracing contradiction, Jacob exhorts Jerry:
Stay with the contradiction. If you stay, you will see that there is always something more than two opposing truths. The whole truth always includes a third part, which is the reconciliation.
The willingness to sit with contradiction, Needleman argues, is the beginning of true self-knowledge and of the deepest kind of truthfulness. Echoing André Gide’s assertion that sincerity is the most difficult feat of all, Jacob tells Jerry:................
Experiencing our contradictions with sincerity is very painful. We prefer imagination The world revolts against it but the seeker of truth invites it since they know it is essential for their search
It's true that we need to recognise the impulses that prevent us from being the kind of people we most want to be, but recognising the many activities of the animal within (many of them helpful) is only the first step in potentially domesticating ourselves. At this juncture many meditation masters will talk about the importance of mindfulness, of regulating oneself, of noticing those things we take for granted, and to grasp the nettle of needed but unwanted tasks and ideas. It's much harder than it sounds; self mastery is more than a lifetime's work.
Agreed, but who can do it? The main reason as I understand it is that we believe we have inner unity – we are ONE, but in reality we are a plurality consisting of many. So one I makes a decision to do something and a short while later, another emerges to deny it. Inner unity is our conscious potential, but as we are, we are a plurality.
My, and Kant's, understanding is that we cannot get in touch with actual reality. Consider what happens to people who return from NDEs - their filters are somewhat disabled and they tend to be overwhelmed by even dim light and gentle sounds. Without the buffer of our brain's filtering we could not function. That's life - you are born without a clue and struggle for a while until your inevitable destruction. One can only hope that when we die, rather than complete annihilation, that the actual reality we have been unable to touch becomes manifest. I suppose one can believe in that, but it's impossible to rationally justify.
We don’t know if we could evolve to consciously experience objective reality. We know that as we are we cannot. We lack the conscious inner unity to experience with the quality necessary for objective knowledge. Yet some are called to try. From the article:
Working like this, and maintaining the fundamental attitude of sincerity about yourself and your discoveries, you will become disillusioned not only with your certainties, but with the structure of your mind itself. You will realize that what you need is not new beliefs, new information, new theories, but an entirely new mind.
Such dissolution of certainty, Needleman argues, is the gateway to real freedom:
Real ideas open the mind to the heart, to the heart of the mind, to another level of reality within ourselves… This is the taste, the beginning, of inner freedom. Only fools imagine that freedom means getting what one happens to desire. Real freedom begins with obedience to a higher influence — a higher, finer energy within oneself.
What is higher in yourself? That way of thinking about the question is the beginning of the answer — because it involves a real idea which has been handed down to humanity over thousands of years… At such a point you yourself will find the answer — not as a thought, but as an experience.
You will for a moment become the answer! You will not only have a taste of real freedom; you will for a moment be freedom.
Jesus said to put new wine into new bottles. We need to open to a new quality of mind which opens our mind and heart to a higher level of reality so as to receive new wine, new understanding.

Most prefer cyber bullying and verbal abuse to justify themselves. Yet there are a minority willing to experience the contradictions between their higher and lower natures in response to the question “who am I” regardless of how disturbing it is. The reconciliation this impartiality produces with help from above invites a higher quality of consciousness and feelings we rarely experience bringing us closer to conscious human evolutionary potential.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:06 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:34 am
marjoram_blues wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:31 am

Whatever 'oneself' is.
Dubious wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:08 am
"Oneself" is the "I" which separates me from you.
marjoram_blues wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
And if you disagree with yourself, are you still not a 'unity' ?
Weird question! How can you not be? One body, one mind with conflicting tendencies generated internally and externally in a million different ways effectually forcing us to compromise with ourselves and others.
marjoram_blues wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
Or is there more than one 'I' to contend with.
People can interpret "I" in whatever manner they like. For me it's a single letter variable denoting the whole including the less known or unknown parts. As simple as that in spite of being immensely complicated when defining volition and questioning motives in all their shifting perspectives.

marjoram_blues wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
An 'I' which can also be at one with another, and not separate, as such.
In agreement - in harmony with a number of people with similar core values.
Being soulmates in some sense does not blend two separate I's into one and love, highly overrated, won't do it either. Parts of different personalities may blend or overlap but never the total. There is distance even between clones.

None of this, btw, requires philosophy!
What a weird exclamation - indeed, two of them !!
The question was in response to your 'For some "inner unity" simply means never disagreeing with oneself.
It wasn't my first reaction - that was 'How bloody clever, along the lines of 'Love means never having to say you're sorry'. And I felt it might be directed at the dead dogma inherent in some deranged, delusional character arranged in foetal position with fingers stuck in ears, protecting self from so-called 'abuse' by those with opposing views.

But then the thought fairy sprinkled some dust into my unsuspecting half-closed left eye.
And the questions began...damn that for a lark, huh ?
However, they usefully brought clarification - and it turns out we are in agreement.

And then your - 'None of this,btw, requires philosophy !'
What was that all about?
A provocation ? It certainly caught Nick's attention...

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:09 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:41 am
Impenitent wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:53 pm
Dubious wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:25 am
For some "inner unity" simply means never disagreeing with oneself.
the group for glue drinkers anonymous meets tuesday nights at the church

-Imp
...and then we'll all sing Hallelujah together!
The Hell we will !

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:34 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:28 am
Nick, IMO all any of us do is is the best they know how at the time. The ideas of theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics, pagans and so on have many commonalities due to our common biology and existential situation.
Agreed. The Beast consisting of a myriad of opinions does the best it can at the time. Hypocrisy has become a natural part of the Beast so nothing more can be expected than what is all too painfully obvious in the world.
I do not see how this response relates to my comment above. I'll attend to the rest of your post later but, to avoid confusion first, could you please explain to me how people struggling with their existential situation and coercive biology makes them hypocritical?

In my experience, most people - theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics or pagans - are not especially hypocritical, just fairly reasonable, largely gentle and honest human beings hoping to have a nice life. No one's perfect. We are all hypocrites at times.

Also, The Great Beast that you keep decrying is basically just a society that coordinates and regulates its people, which includes all societies and organisations in the world so far. So what do you prpose as an alternative to civil society? Do you propose the complete dismantling of society and a return to the wild? Do you propose the removal of governments to be replaced by theosophical churches?

How, in practical terms, do you actually want society to be structured? Do you believe there should be a structure at all?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10658
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:07 am

Nick_A wrote:So it becomes obvious why the idea that "I am not I" cannot be discussed. ...
It does, you refuse to discuss exactly what it is you are proposing?
The secular mind is closed to any sincere efforts to "know thyself" ...
There is no 'secular mind' Nick_A in Philosophy in this respect, it's just a fantasy of your own making. Try stopping all the kisses and attempt a slap of truth for once in your life.
so becomes restricted to mindless negativity and denial as opposed to inner verification.
Here's your opportunity, what do you mean by "inner verification"?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10658
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:18 am

Nick_A wrote: Why is it that the distinction between "I' and the self, so well known in the East at least theoretically is so condemned in the West as it is here. ...
Largely I think because in all that time they gave no thought to freeing their youth from real slavery, educating them to read and write, providing them with healthcare(although admittedly your country still doesn't do this), etc, etc.
Those like Jacob Needleman have made great efforts for opening minds but still at least in the west it will always be denied. ...
Mainly because they are the thoughts and problems of the judeo-christian theist and they are issues of their own making. You really think Plato and Socrates bothered themselves with what you appear to be proposing? Although it is nearly impossible to pin you down as to what you are actually proposing?
A recent book is such an effort. some of the young will understand and that is what is important for the survival of the human race. ...
Really! Get over yourself, there is a huge world out there and different civilizations where the world will chunder along without your personal sectarian issues.
He raises needed questions regardless of how they are rejected by the majority who have become closed to the distinction between "I" and the Self and how to deal with it.
So come on then, what is this distinction between 'I' and 'Self' and how are you dealing with it?
I Am Not I
by Jacob Needleman

Seeking to reconcile the split between our inner child and our adult self, eminent philosopher and religious scholar Jacob Needleman evokes the ancient spiritual tradition of a deep dialogue between a guiding wisdom figure and a seeker. The elder offers an initiation to a younger self, an initiation the author feels is missing from our culture. Rendered as a stage play, the conversation between the 80-year-old author and his younger selves unfolds, and an ambiguity emerges as to whether this is strictly the author’s internal dialogue or whether the younger self may be nurturing a rebirth of the author.

On one level, I Am Not I brings younger readers (teenagers and young adults) face to face with powerful spiritual and philosophical ideas. But as the book progresses, the dialogue delves into questions and insights that carry astonishing new hope and vision for every man and woman, challenging our culture’s accepted—and often toxic—ideas about humanity’s place in a living universe.
Come on then Nick_A, tell us how this book affected you and how it has changed you?

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:45 am

Greta

Me:
Agreed. The Beast consisting of a myriad of opinions does the best it can at the time. Hypocrisy has become a natural part of the Beast so nothing more can be expected than what is all too painfully obvious in the world.

G:
I do not see how this response relates to my comment above. I'll attend to the rest of your post later but, to avoid confusion first, could you please explain to me how people struggling with their existential situation and coercive biology makes them hypocritical?

In my experience, most people - theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics or pagans - are not especially hypocritical, just fairly reasonable, largely gentle and honest human beings hoping to have a nice life. No one's perfect. We are all hypocrites at times.
Does St. Paul’s description of himself include you as it does me? If it does, than you are a hypocrite.

Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
Also, The Great Beast that you keep decrying is basically just a society that coordinates and regulates its people, which includes all societies and organisations in the world so far. So what do you prpose as an alternative to civil society? Do you propose the complete dismantling of society and a return to the wild? Do you propose the removal of governments to be replaced by theosophical churches?

How, in practical terms, do you actually want society to be structured? Do you believe there should be a structure at all?
No, I support the Declaration of independence:

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
A functioning free society must reflect three basic levels of values

1. Eternal laws: These laws contain the values that have always existed and make the cycle of universal involution and evolutionary possible.
2. Natural laws: These are the expressions of universal laws visible for us in nature.
3. Positive Laws: These are laws society creates for particular situations

My idea of the ideal society begins with recognition of eternal laws expressed through objective values. We verify and accept them through consciously witnessing their expression in natural laws. Finally society expresse this relationship through positive laws regulating society.

Of course none of this exists now. Positive laws created by power seekers replaces eternal laws assuring the death of a free society.

I also largely agree with Simone Weil’s conception of the ideal society:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:04 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:45 am
Greta wrote:I do not see how this response relates to my comment above. I'll attend to the rest of your post later but, to avoid confusion first, could you please explain to me how people struggling with their existential situation and coercive biology makes them hypocritical?

In my experience, most people - theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics or pagans - are not especially hypocritical, just fairly reasonable, largely gentle and honest human beings hoping to have a nice life. No one's perfect. We are all hypocrites at times.
Does St. Paul’s description of himself include you as it does me? If it does, than you are a hypocrite.
Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
Nick, for clarity's sake, here is a modern translation on Paul's text - think of it as the next level after the St James:
Paul (modernised) wrote:14 We are supposed to be good but I am a stuffup, too beholden to my animal desires. 15 I do not understand what I do. For I keep procrastinating and screwing up when I finally try to make myself useful. 16 Even if I screw up, I still know that I did it. 17 It is not so much me doing these things as my pesky evolved instincts! 18 For I know that I am a royal screwup merchant. [c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I stuff sooo very much. Dammit! 19 I really truly do screw up an awful lot, and it keeps bloody happening. Aaarrrgghhh!! 20 It wasn't me - the Devil made me do it!

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, I am simply a massive fuckup merchant. 22 For in my inner being I want to do well; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against what I want, rendering me an irredeemable screwup. 24 Oh dear, I don't like myself any more (as if you couldn't guess). Dammit, I am so shit I wanna die. 25 Fingers crossed things will be better on the other side.

So I know what I want to do but I just like drinking/fucking/eating/smoking weed/etc too much to resist.
// end epistle

I reckon the guy ought to go a bit easy on himself. After all, most of us are only human :lol:

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 am

Greta wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:04 am
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:45 am
Greta wrote:I do not see how this response relates to my comment above. I'll attend to the rest of your post later but, to avoid confusion first, could you please explain to me how people struggling with their existential situation and coercive biology makes them hypocritical?

In my experience, most people - theists, atheists, pantheists, panentheists, deists, agnostics or pagans - are not especially hypocritical, just fairly reasonable, largely gentle and honest human beings hoping to have a nice life. No one's perfect. We are all hypocrites at times.
Does St. Paul’s description of himself include you as it does me? If it does, than you are a hypocrite.
Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
Nick, for clarity's sake, here is a modern translation on Paul's text - think of it as the next level after the St James:
Paul (modernised) wrote:14 We are supposed to be good but I am a stuffup, too beholden to my animal desires. 15 I do not understand what I do. For I keep procrastinating and screwing up when I finally try to make myself useful. 16 Even if I screw up, I still know that I did it. 17 It is not so much me doing these things as my pesky evolved instincts! 18 For I know that I am a royal screwup merchant. [c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I stuff sooo very much. Dammit! 19 I really truly do screw up an awful lot, and it keeps bloody happening. Aaarrrgghhh!! 20 It wasn't me - the Devil made me do it!

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, I am simply a massive fuckup merchant. 22 For in my inner being I want to do well; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against what I want, rendering me an irredeemable screwup. 24 Oh dear, I don't like myself any more (as if you couldn't guess). Dammit, I am so shit I wanna die. 25 Fingers crossed things will be better on the other side.

So I know what I want to do but I just like drinking/fucking/eating/smoking weed/etc too much to resist.
// end epistle

I reckon the guy ought to go a bit easy on himself. After all, most of us are only human :lol:
So...you do no wrong? Or is there no wrong?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:23 am
So...you do no wrong? Or is there no wrong?
Everyone wrongs someone else to some extent in every moment of every day, even if it means occupying a space that others could use.

Some wrongs are greater than others, but it's surprising how much people's views vary as to what constitutes a grievous wrong, what constitutes a misdemeanour and what constitutes good.

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am

When we compare St. Paul’s description of himself with that of the modern educated Paul it becomes obvious why why the essence of religion devolves into secularism
Does St. Paul’s description of himself include you as it does me? If it does, than you are a hypocrite.

Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

Nick, for clarity's sake, here is a modern translation on Paul's text - think of it as the next level after the St James:

Paul (modernised) wrote:14 We are supposed to be good but I am a stuffup, too beholden to my animal desires. 15 I do not understand what I do. For I keep procrastinating and screwing up when I finally try to make myself useful. 16 Even if I screw up, I still know that I did it. 17 It is not so much me doing these things as my pesky evolved instincts! 18 For I know that I am a royal screwup merchant. [c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I stuff sooo very much. Dammit! 19 I really truly do screw up an awful lot, and it keeps bloody happening. Aaarrrgghhh!! 20 It wasn't me - the Devil made me do it!

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, I am simply a massive fuckup merchant. 22 For in my inner being I want to do well; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against what I want, rendering me an irredeemable screwup. 24 Oh dear, I don't like myself any more (as if you couldn't guess). Dammit, I am so shit I wanna die. 25 Fingers crossed things will be better on the other side.

So I know what I want to do but I just like drinking/fucking/eating/smoking weed/etc too much to resist.
First of all notice that St. Paul speaks of God’s law while the modern educated Paul closed to God's law speaks of a secular good. Second, St’ Paul experiences different levels of reality or the higher and lower parts of his soul as disconnected without inner unity. He has no “I” but is rather a plurality of Is. He is incapable of "I Am" but rather exists as We are. This is a wretched condition The modern educated Paul assumes inner unity which doesn’t exist. So rather than seeing himself as wretched, he considers himself bad - an irredeemable screwup who wants to die. In contrast, St. Paul wants to live. Where St. Paul seeks help from above to repair his fallen emotional condition, the modern educated Paul relies on materialism and condemning others for his salvation. Such an attitude willingly relies on cyber bullying and verbal abuse to justify his suffering. St. Paul realizes he can continue as a slave to sin or open to help from above to repair his fallen emotional condition at the expense of his false pride and vanity.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:58 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am
So rather than seeing himself as wretched, he considers himself bad - an irredeemable screwup who wants to die. In contrast, St. Paul wants to live.
That's just you taking a joke literally.

My point was that Paul isn't saying anything of note - just a lot of whining about his imperfections. There is no depth to it at all; he's like a 16 year-old enthusiastically melancholic Goth.

Almost everyone at some stage feels self loathing due to their screwups, and almost everyone retains hope that they can improve. The process is known as "maturing" and is more or less universal. Judged today, grown tomorrow. We are not fixed in stone and forever irredeemable, as you suggest, but living, growing, maturing beings who are wired for self development. Why make such a song and dance about what so very basic and everyday as though you were telling people something they didn't know?

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:24 pm

Greta wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:58 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am
So rather than seeing himself as wretched, he considers himself bad - an irredeemable screwup who wants to die. In contrast, St. Paul wants to live.
That's just you taking a joke literally.

My point was that Paul isn't saying anything of note - just a lot of whining about his imperfections. There is no depth to it at all; he's like a 16 year-old enthusiastically melancholic Goth.

Almost everyone at some stage feels self loathing due to their screwups, and almost everyone retains hope that they can improve. The process is known as "maturing" and is more or less universal. Judged today, grown tomorrow. We are not fixed in stone and forever irredeemable, as you suggest, but living, growing, maturing beings who are wired for self development. Why make such a song and dance about what so very basic and everyday as though you were telling people something they didn't know?
You just do not understand Christianity. You are concerned with the outer shell or personality of a person and Christianity is concerned with the essence of a person - the inner man. You will consider what Paul says in the following to be the normal complaining of the outer man. Anyone who doesn't distinguish between the inner and outer man will never understand Christianity. You will never understand why glorifying worldly sorrow and making it the center of attention through negativity such as verbal abuse brings death and consciously transcending as opposed to indoctrination brings life. There is no inner man for the secularist that can be touched and helped by higher consciousness. Only the shell is real and all that is worthy of concern.
2 Corinthians 7
8 Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— 9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. 10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. 12 So even though I wrote to you, it was neither on account of the one who did the wrong nor on account of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. 13 By all this we are encouraged.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Greta » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:22 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:24 pm
Greta wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:58 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am
So rather than seeing himself as wretched, he considers himself bad - an irredeemable screwup who wants to die. In contrast, St. Paul wants to live.
That's just you taking a joke literally.

My point was that Paul isn't saying anything of note - just a lot of whining about his imperfections. There is no depth to it at all; he's like a 16 year-old enthusiastically melancholic Goth.

Almost everyone at some stage feels self loathing due to their screwups, and almost everyone retains hope that they can improve. The process is known as "maturing" and is more or less universal. Judged today, grown tomorrow. We are not fixed in stone and forever irredeemable, as you suggest, but living, growing, maturing beings who are wired for self development. Why make such a song and dance about what so very basic and everyday as though you were telling people something they didn't know?
You just do not understand Christianity. You are concerned with the outer shell or personality of a person and Christianity is concerned with the essence of a person - the inner man. You will consider what Paul says in the following to be the normal complaining of the outer man. Anyone who doesn't distinguish between the inner and outer man will never understand Christianity. You will never understand why glorifying worldly sorrow and making it the center of attention through negativity such as verbal abuse brings death and consciously transcending as opposed to indoctrination brings life. There is no inner man for the secularist that can be touched and helped by higher consciousness. Only the shell is real and all that is worthy of concern.
Your accusations of superficiality are in themselves shallow, and that was my point. You focus on weak abstract superficialities seemingly largely for competitive purposes rather than investigating them further. Yes, we know. It's not easy to be the person you want to/should be.

Where is the curiosity? Where is the respect for science? You never seem much interested in what others say or think - it's either you preaching down on high to your occasional rapt fan or it's an argument.

Our inner workings and configuration are a matter of investigation, not of established knowledge provided by higher powered to those rare being "in tune with God". So I would not take your views on the "inner person" seriously based on the above; they are just claims without meat on the bones. If you are so in tune with the inner person, how can you not notice that your champion, Trump, is an outrageous liar who has lowered the bar to an unprecedented level? It appears that your theories are not put into practice.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10658
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:37 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:41 am
When we compare St. Paul’s description of himself with that of the modern educated Paul it becomes obvious why why the essence of religion devolves into secularism. ...
Are you mental? St.Paul created the 'secular religion' you deplore, his sect was the winner in the West.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests