Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
shame on an IGA
Apr 8, 2005

Bugman the line of thinking you espouse is the exact one that leads people to spiral into blackpill inceldom, I know because I spent a long time walking it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

shame on an IGA posted:

Bugman the line of thinking you espouse is the exact one that leads people to spiral into blackpill inceldom, I know because I spent a long time walking it.

I would disagree, but only a bit. For starters I think that Inceldom comes out of a similar impulse but instead of aiming the loathing inward alone it instead gets broadcast to anyone who is vaguely feminine. Indeed, I would say that the problem with Inceldom and "black pill" poo poo in general is that the disdain for the self is not amplified and focussed. It is instead aimed outwardly. If incels truly believed in what they state then they would keep quiet and allow themselves to suffer. But since that is not all they feel they instead aim it outwardly at other people. "These other people are the fault for my problems because of [X]", that sort of idea. It can be anything as silly as "hot girls won't date me" to "my skull is the wrong shape", but instead of focussing on actions done it is instead focussed on things other people are.

If you've made a thread or having anything to say more about it would love to hear about it, though more than understandable if the subject is a bit invasive!

HopperUK posted:

1) You have to have compassion for yourself to an extent, you are not a less worthy person than everyone around you, trust me

2) Guinefort is best boy for cuddles, Christopher is best boy for crossing rivers, Dog be praised.

Who is a better judge on ones internal world and actions than ourselves? We just have to counter-balance our intrinsic drives/ automatic excuse making. Though I do appreciate you saying so!

I would also have accepted Gelert as best boy, but yes they both are the best boy.

HopperUK
Apr 29, 2007

Why would an ambulance be leaving the hospital?

Josef bugman posted:

I would disagree, but only a bit. For starters I think that Inceldom comes out of a similar impulse but instead of aiming the loathing inward alone it instead gets broadcast to anyone who is vaguely feminine. Indeed, I would say that the problem with Inceldom and "black pill" poo poo in general is that the disdain for the self is not amplified and focussed. It is instead aimed outwardly. If incels truly believed in what they state then they would keep quiet and allow themselves to suffer. But since that is not all they feel they instead aim it outwardly at other people. "These other people are the fault for my problems because of [X]", that sort of idea. It can be anything as silly as "hot girls won't date me" to "my skull is the wrong shape", but instead of focussing on actions done it is instead focussed on things other people are.

If you've made a thread or having anything to say more about it would love to hear about it, though more than understandable if the subject is a bit invasive!


Who is a better judge on ones internal world and actions than ourselves? We just have to counter-balance our intrinsic drives/ automatic excuse making. Though I do appreciate you saying so!

I would also have accepted Gelert as best boy, but yes they both are the best boy.

To be honest Gelert and Guinefort feel like very similar dogs.

My guy we are the worst people to judge ourselves because we see ourselves so unclearly. IMO anyway.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund
Dear Josef,

One benefit of self-examination that often appears in conjunction with a spiritual practice, is the realization that you are not unique. The doubts, self-loathing, fear and confusion, we all deal with it in our own way - and since you're talking to us, we can mirror those feelings and help you with them.

Also, keep in mind that the self is an extremely unreliable narrator, as is the fact that it's clothed in flesh. Everything from forgetfulness to hormones can give us the notion that we should despise ourselves, in spite of us having done nothing wrong at all.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



Josef bugman posted:

I think it's necessary to not pay too much attention to the suffering we see all around us, otherwise we'd all go completely bananas. In response to the bolded bit I am unsure that that happens, least of all I am wondering what temptations or negative outcomes there could be.

One can have compassion and still reserve it from oneself. I appreciate the idea but I am unsure as to how true it is.
Do you mean "people should cultivate compassion except for themselves," or "people should cultivate compassion except for forums poster Josef Bugman"? I disagree with both of these, myself, for similar reasons: attempting to cultivate a quality but with huge explicit exceptions will rarely bear much fruit.

I do not think that you can except yourself from compassion.

Did you have thoughts about the other downsides of this exercise? The profound waste of immense amounts of human energy and suffering for absolutely nothing except perhaps some nebulous motivational benefit stands out to me almost as much as the direct facts of suffering. I suppose it is a boon to consumer spending, though! :v:

e: To make a yard-sale quality parable about it, I would say compassion is like muscles, as are many other virtues. Your ability to develop them may have limits but ultimately you need regular exercise, and perhaps focused, deliberate exercise if you want BIG RESULTS. If you approach physical training with an attitude of "I want to get big arms," that can likely be done, but if you approach physical training with "I definitely don't want to develop my left calf," you are at best going to spend a lot of time working around your left calf, and may not get much result at all.

In my view, it is one thing to not emphasize your compassion upon yourself, or even to question that kind of an attitude as a primary focus. But it is another to adamantly set that part of the universe aside.

Nessus fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 20, 2021

White Coke
May 29, 2015

HopperUK posted:

My guy we are the worst people to judge ourselves because we see ourselves so unclearly. IMO anyway.

We don't even know what our own voices sound like.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Guinfort is just Gelert wearing a beret and putting on a bad accent.

Sure, but in the same way that we can know the weight of something and can compensate for it. If I know that something I have lists to one side, I can compensate by being heavier on the other. If I know that often we're too soft on our own reasoning for stuff, it's better and easier to swing it in the opposite direction.


I mean it's hard enough doing it here. It's not something I can, or should, talk about IRL. Mainly because it's taking up enough space on here!

I would, and again this is only personally, disagree. I think that there are often lots of reasons we tell ourselves why we shouldn't, why doing X or Y makes us virtuous or moral.


Nessus posted:

In my view, it is one thing to not emphasize your compassion upon yourself, or even to question that kind of an attitude as a primary focus. But it is another to adamantly set that part of the universe aside.

Myself in particular, but extended out to folks that feel they should, I suppose? I would not want to talk on the behalf of other people, I am just me and should not be used as a representative of anything.

I disagree, people can be kind and generous and loving towards people and also unbelievably awful towards others in their life. It's an attempt to try and prevent the latter by making sure to focus that inward. I am not sure you can, but I am wondering if we should. I suppose

Where else could the energy be focussed? For all we know it could be aimed at significantly worse things. From personal experience only I don't tend to buy that much more when I especially dislike myself. It'd be like trying to buy a keychain for a 2 metre high key, it wouldn't fit and it'd look silly.

Refusing to do so doesn't seem to have been a matter of much conjecture, it's why I wonder about it a fair bit.

White Coke posted:

We don't even know what our own voices sound like.

Fair point.

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004


Out here, everything hurts.




HopperUK posted:

1) You have to have compassion for yourself to an extent, you are not a less worthy person than everyone around you, trust me

2) Guinefort is best boy for cuddles, Christopher is best boy for crossing rivers, Dog be praised.

I'd say Christopher would be your best buddy for walks in general, while Guinefort would be better if you're looking for a companion for your kids.

Jupiter Jazz
Jan 13, 2007

by sebmojo
Please pray for my friend Shaun who has a health scare. He lives in Japan and they think he might have the big C (not Covid, the other one). Thankfully he lives in Japan (he's Canadian though) so he has good access to healthcare and will be taken care of. Still worrying. He's had an autoimmune issue recently and they don't know what's up. Please pray for him and his family!

White Coke
May 29, 2015
I've come across an argument several times recently that goes like this: Jesus existed, but he was just a millenarian cult leader. Aside from predicting the immanent apocalypse he was a conventional Second Temple Judaism practitioner. He predicted the apocalypse would happen within the lifetime of his followers, and when it didn't they just doubled down like all apocalypse cults do and once they decided to proselytize among gentiles their religion began to acquire more and more pagan characteristics.

Where did this argument come from? It seems to me like it's something that was worked backwards from the conclusion, since it contradicts scripture, but it can do so at will since it allows one to just declare any part of the bible that contradicts the theory to be a later addition contrary to what Jesus "really" taught.

Jupiter Jazz posted:

Please pray for my friend Shaun who has a health scare. He lives in Japan and they think he might have the big C (not Covid, the other one). Thankfully he lives in Japan (he's Canadian though) so he has good access to healthcare and will be taken care of. Still worrying. He's had an autoimmune issue recently and they don't know what's up. Please pray for him and his family!

Will do.

Bilirubin
Feb 16, 2014

The sanctioned action is to CHUG


Tias posted:

Dear Josef,

One benefit of self-examination that often appears in conjunction with a spiritual practice, is the realization that you are not unique. The doubts, self-loathing, fear and confusion, we all deal with it in our own way - and since you're talking to us, we can mirror those feelings and help you with them.

Also, keep in mind that the self is an extremely unreliable narrator, as is the fact that it's clothed in flesh. Everything from forgetfulness to hormones can give us the notion that we should despise ourselves, in spite of us having done nothing wrong at all.

This a million times this.

After forever (even longer than I resisted getting a paid account here) I finally got a FB account. And one of the first people to follow me was someone that, to my (personal) shame, I had wronged. After they friended me in chat I finally apologized to them for having been such a dick to them over such and such incident that weighed so heavily with me. Their response? "Uh, whatever the gently caress are you talking about? I have no memory of such a thing, it obviously didn't affect me, whatever, give yourself a break!"

By popular demand
Jul 17, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 22 hours!
That's just the thing that was in the back of my mind ever since I've read "Flow my tears said the police man" and the wiki article about it: people do evil and think that they get away with it but we are all being judged.
Whether humanity invented God to explain the necessity of of a conscience or whether it was the other way we are all being judged, so we should try to become better than we are.

Phillips K. Dick book title hidden for possible spoilers

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



Bilirubin posted:

This a million times this.

After forever (even longer than I resisted getting a paid account here) I finally got a FB account. And one of the first people to follow me was someone that, to my (personal) shame, I had wronged. After they friended me in chat I finally apologized to them for having been such a dick to them over such and such incident that weighed so heavily with me. Their response? "Uh, whatever the gently caress are you talking about? I have no memory of such a thing, it obviously didn't affect me, whatever, give yourself a break!"
Yeah, this sort of thing is very common, and I know from full experience that it will certainly be these things that we cling to with such passionate intensity. This is suffering, and the release from suffering. To be more or less official: Josef, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Liquid Communism posted:

I'd say Christopher would be your best buddy for walks in general, while Guinefort would be better if you're looking for a companion for your kids.

That's very true. I do wonder why the "loyal dog getting killed" motif is so common in certain places.


I hope that he gets better soon, and that he stays better!

White Coke posted:

Where did this argument come from? It seems to me like it's something that was worked backwards from the conclusion, since it contradicts scripture, but it can do so at will since it allows one to just declare any part of the bible that contradicts the theory to be a later addition contrary to what Jesus "really" taught.

I know that a few people had arguments a few years back, though I again can't remember who exactly, that Jesus was essentially a reform minded Jewish teacher (I am not sure that Rabbi is the correct term since I think Rabbinical Judaism dates from after Jesus Christ the historical figure was around?)

Bilirubin posted:

After forever (even longer than I resisted getting a paid account here) I finally got a FB account. And one of the first people to follow me was someone that, to my (personal) shame, I had wronged. After they friended me in chat I finally apologized to them for having been such a dick to them over such and such incident that weighed so heavily with me. Their response? "Uh, whatever the gently caress are you talking about? I have no memory of such a thing, it obviously didn't affect me, whatever, give yourself a break!"

Sure but, I dunno. Even if the other person feels that no harm was done to them or that "enough time has passed" or what have you, I don't think the person involved should necessarily feel let off the hook. Even if a person forgives another person it doesn't necessarily remedy what has been done. Sometimes even if the other person forgives you it isn't what is needed.


The book sounds on the weirder end of things, the synopsis and overarching themes also seem weird as all heck.


But what if it's not. Sure it might appear to be a small thing to you at one point, but upon re-examining it we find out that it was in fact a huge mistake that we now cannot undo?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Josef bugman posted:

I know that a few people had arguments a few years back, though I again can't remember who exactly, that Jesus was essentially a reform minded Jewish teacher (I am not sure that Rabbi is the correct term since I think Rabbinical Judaism dates from after Jesus Christ the historical figure was around?)

Rabbi would be an appropriate term, but it wouldn't mean the same thing as it does today. Rabbinic Judaism was the way Judaism adapted to the destruction of the second temple, which took place after Jesus the historical figure was arrested and killed. In Jesus's time, "rabbi" had the same meaning that "sage" or "guru" might have today - an informal, uncredentialed term for a Jewish spiritual leader or teacher.

After the second temple, the Pharisees led the development of formal Rabbinical ordination (semicha), essentially to replace the priests who could no longer perform rituals at the temple. And then the title of Rabbi continued to evolve over the next ~2000 years.

So it would be correct to say Jesus was a lowercase-r rabbi, a sage and spiritualist, but not an uppercase-R Rabbi, because that system didn't yet exist.

I think it's more accurate to refer to Jesus as "apocalypse-minded" than "reform-minded." He had his own interpretations of Jewish law which sometimes varied from the consensus, but what really drove him, according to secular scholarship, was the belief that the world as we know it would end very soon, certainly within the lifetimes of his followers.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jan 21, 2021

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Civilized Fishbot posted:

So it would be correct to say Jesus was a lowercase-r rabbi, a sage and spiritualist, but not an uppercase-R Rabbi, because that system didn't yet exist.

I think it's more accurate to refer to Jesus as "apocalypse-minded" than "reform-minded." He had his own interpretations of Jewish law which sometimes varied from the consensus, but what really drove him, according to secular scholarship, was the belief that the world as we know it would end very soon, certainly within the lifetimes of his followers.

Got it, thank you. I don't want to get the terms wrong, but is interesting to find out more of the overarching nature of this stuff. Thanks!

What is the latter based on? My knowledge on Jesus' life is just the highlights really (curing people, Lazarus, etc) but the whole idea of "render unto Caeser what is Caesers" doesn't seem to be based around an immediate apocalyptic vision per say.

By popular demand
Jul 17, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 22 hours!

Josef bugman posted:

The book sounds on the weirder end of things, the synopsis and overarching themes also seem weird as all heck.

Yes that's Phillip K Dick, this book is nowhere near his most trippy works.
I wonder what a theological minded Christian would make of "The three stigmata of Palmer Eldritch"

E: Eldritch not Eldridge

By popular demand fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jan 21, 2021

Night10194
Feb 13, 2012

We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

White Coke posted:

I've come across an argument several times recently that goes like this: Jesus existed, but he was just a millenarian cult leader. Aside from predicting the immanent apocalypse he was a conventional Second Temple Judaism practitioner. He predicted the apocalypse would happen within the lifetime of his followers, and when it didn't they just doubled down like all apocalypse cults do and once they decided to proselytize among gentiles their religion began to acquire more and more pagan characteristics.

Where did this argument come from? It seems to me like it's something that was worked backwards from the conclusion, since it contradicts scripture, but it can do so at will since it allows one to just declare any part of the bible that contradicts the theory to be a later addition contrary to what Jesus "really" taught.


Will do.

Saying he was conventional isn't accurate but most of the rest of it is fairly historically accurate/plausible based on a mixture of sources at the time and scripture itself, if you take the stories and don't necessarily believe any of the supernatural elements. It's less 'began to acquire more pagan characteristics' and most importantly 'opened up to conversion much more fully than conventional second temple Judaism'. Similar, there's a lot in Paul's letters where people are beginning to die off and they're like 'what gives, where is Jesus' and he comes up with a theological explanation based around the resurrection of the dead similar to the Book of Daniel. From a secular scholastic point of view most of what you've written up there is the conventional take on the story, from my time studying it from that point of view. It's not about declaring what Jesus 'really' taught or anything, it's more about a best guess about what we can say confidently historically, based on looking at when sources agree or disagree or are mentioned in other sources or what we can determine about when sources were written.

Now, when they say Jesus was fairly conventional, they probably mean more that this was a really fraught time of civil and religious tension, where new sects and teachers were popping up constantly. Which probably also helped get Jesus killed, if you take the purely secular view of things, because our Roman sources say that Pilate was a goddamn brutal man who was recalled from governing because of multiple incidents where he was too kill/execution happy in a tense province (like the time he slaughtered a bunch of peaceful religious pilgrims, mistaking them for a rebel army) and so a guy causing a disturbance at Passover would probably be taken for a religious rebel and executed. Which still tracks with Scripture, really, considering Jesus's entry into Jerusalem and all. The secular scholarly consensus (when I was still actively studying, I need to add this caveat: I finished my Masters about 9 years ago and failed to get into a PhD since I'm terrible at Hebrew and Greek) isn't that Jesus was super conventional but rather that his situation was common at the time period, being a preacher with a new doctrine. And his followers adapted to circumstances after his death, caught on, and ended up becoming a big deal and splitting from Judaism in part because, yes, Paul was an extremely successful missionary and the faith in general was more adaptable about being for everyone, letting them spread among the neighboring communities to Jews in the Hellenistic diaspora because those people might be interested and also had heard the basic parts of the story and knew what Paul was talking about.

But again, all this is the secular scholastic interpretation. As a believer, there's a lot to add on to/into there when viewing the story from that perspective. Where are you encountering this take? If it's from, like, a professor in a religious studies program I wouldn't be that surprised.

E: Another important thing to add is that in this take, usually people believe the teachings are primarily what's in the scriptures, because the Gospels were designed to get Jesus's teachings wider attention; they might have various alterations to get through to an audience better or emphasize different aspects of it, but they're our best evidence for what he taught and some of them are very close to his time, so there isn't a lot of reason to believe his teachings were somehow something radically different than the Gospels themselves. If they were, they were in a way we have no evidence for and thus can't say much about. When you're dealing with ancient history you're always dealing with 'this is our best guess from available sources' and 'this is acknowledging that this is the source we've got so we have to work off it'. Thus, a historian who believed in a historical Jesus (and there's evidence for him existing, certainly, and his existence is extremely plausible) would probably say that the Gospels are reasonable evidence of his teachings as a preacher.

Night10194 fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jan 21, 2021

Keromaru5
Dec 28, 2012

Pictured: The Wolf Of Gubbio (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Josef bugman posted:

What is the latter based on? My knowledge on Jesus' life is just the highlights really (curing people, Lazarus, etc) but the whole idea of "render unto Caeser what is Caesers" doesn't seem to be based around an immediate apocalyptic vision per say.
There is definitely a heavy eschatological outlook throughout the New Testament, but especially in the Gospels. They're all written to show how Jesus fulfills the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, who will usher in the end of this age. Jesus' Incarnation, earthly ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection are the turning point. Jesus himself is continually preaching about the Kingdom of God. The first things he says after coming back from his baptism and temptation in the desert are "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand" and telling a synagogue that he's fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah. Most of his prophecies are about God's judgment as he brings about the Kingdom. And even that teaching, "render unto Caesar," makes sense in an apocalyptic point of view: he's always saying in the Gospels to let go of attachments to wealth, family, comfort, or safety, and taxes are part of that. Those coins belong to Caesar; just let them go.

And even if the end didn't come within the Apostles' lifetime, this is still important for Christians, especially Catholics and Orthodox. Every Mass or Divine Liturgy is considered to be a visit to the Kingdom of God. In the Divine Liturgy, we even have a few temporal paradoxes--commemorating the Second Coming as if it's already happened. We're still called to live as if our kingdom is not of this world; I think that's part of the purpose behind our asceticism. Whether it's preparing for death or the second coming, we're going to a place where food, sex, anger, and money simply aren't going to matter anymore, so fast, be chaste, give freely, and forgive.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



Josef bugman posted:

But what if it's not. Sure it might appear to be a small thing to you at one point, but upon re-examining it we find out that it was in fact a huge mistake that we now cannot undo?
Then you play the ball where it lies, my dude. Why do anything? It might be a devastating mistake.

e: The above was a rhetorical question. Anyway, if I get you right your basic theories on why interior suffering is desirable are as follows: It helps you learn better behavior; you have no right to the interior experience of forgiveness; and there seems to be a third one which I would appreciate if you could articulate more clearly, because it seems to be along the lines of 'stop trying to help people in some situations, despite my other general statements in favor of helping people.'

Leaving the third one aside because I do not fully encompass it and so I have been mentally interpreting it as, essentially, a plea for comfort (or perhaps confirmation of negative feelings):

There may be a whisker of truth to the first statement. In my religious perspective we run into a minor issue often, where the English term "suffering" is used to refer to a different range of phenomena that Buddhism is addressing. In this perspective, suffering includes the feelings that come when considering the inevitable end of a good thing or situation (and thus grasping for it, to try to hold on), as well as the generalized dissatisfaction with the inevitable imperfection of life. I suspect, to some extent, that I am coming off as saying "all non-positive sensations are bad." This is not quite the case, although I would not say that they are "good" either - they just "are."

An immediate stab of guilt or other response, based on cultivated awareness that was just not powerful enough to prevent you from doing the thing in the meantime - or realizing that a negative condition has come into existence even if it was not your will (someone takes offense at something you did, due to misunderstanding you can perceive) - is part of the unsatisfactoriness of reality, but you can decide how to face it from there. The bad condition would be if you cannot resolve this feeling, and it becomes a recurring source of suffering, another arrow embedded in your flesh. Eventually it may be impossible to do so, and beyond the acknowledgement that "yeah, I erred there," it has no utility.

As for a right to the interior experience of forgiveness, I do not think "right" enters into it. "Right" suggests some kind of cosmic ledger or enforcer which I do not think exists, other than the laws of karma, which are more like the laws of gravity than something legislated in Universe Congress. If the interior experience of forgiveness would address suffering without severe side-effects or tending to guide against right action, I see no reason not to embrace it.

Nessus fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 21, 2021

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Josef bugman posted:

Got it, thank you. I don't want to get the terms wrong, but is interesting to find out more of the overarching nature of this stuff. Thanks!

What is the latter based on? My knowledge on Jesus' life is just the highlights really (curing people, Lazarus, etc) but the whole idea of "render unto Caeser what is Caesers" doesn't seem to be based around an immediate apocalyptic vision per say.

I think other posters have already covered the general eschatological focus of Jesus' ministry better than I could, but I want to add that "renter unto Caesar what is Caesar's" was, in fact, based on an immediate apocalyptic vision. Jesus was answering the question among Jews in his time and place, "what do we do about the Roman Empire occupying and abusing us?" For a lot of Jews, the answer was violent resistance or refusal to pay taxes. Jesus's answer was, "we can wait it out, because in our own lifetimes, G-d will address and resolve this problem by delivering His kingdom."

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Nessus posted:

Then you play the ball where it lies, my dude. Why do anything? It might be a devastating mistake.

This is what me posting is. I am not entirely joking. I sometimes don't leave the house or talk to anyone because "this" is safe.


How much of this was contemporaneous with Christ himself? I don't remember where I read it but some people argued that his life was more moulded to fit the Messiah ideal post death, rather than something done by Christ himself during his lifetime.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I think other posters have already covered the general eschatological focus of Jesus' ministry better than I could, but I want to add that "renter unto Caesar what is Caesar's" was, in fact, based on an immediate apocalyptic vision. Jesus was answering the question among Jews in his time and place, "what do we do about the Roman Empire occupying and abusing us?" For a lot of Jews, the answer was violent resistance or refusal to pay taxes. Jesus's answer was, "we can wait it out, because in our own lifetimes, G-d will address and resolve this problem by delivering His kingdom."

And how do Christians square this point of view with the lack of apocalypse?


Could you provide a bit of a quote about the third bit, as I am unsure too!

Dukkha, right? The belief that things "are" and that no moral weight can be given to them is very hard for me to wrap my head around. And if I face it by saying "this is part of me". No-one moves on from trauma or pain and "accepting" those things is as near as I can get to feeling blasphemous. I don't accept those things, I reject that any correctly built system would allow these things to flourish.

How are we defining "utility"? Because, whilst it might not be doing me any good I also can't say that it is doing me any ill. Like if we applied this more widely it shades rapidly into "drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not" territory.

I don't think one exists either, but I think one should. The guilty should suffer, so I do. It's not enough, but it is all I can do at present.

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jan 21, 2021

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"
Another thing to keep in mind with regards to the question of whether Jesus predicted an apocalypse within the lifetime of his followers is that the Gospels are rather unreliable sources for this. Most scholars date the composition of Mark, the first Gospel to be written down, to after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. Scholars who contest this generally only are willing to argue that it may be have composed in the late 60s, which still puts it a generation removed from Jesus's day. The other three gospels were written down even later. This is not to say they were made up, they were certainly composed based on oral memory and perhaps preliminary written sources. However, a major theory as to why the Gospels began to be written down in the late 1st century is that early Christians had concluded a more permanent record was required, since the return of Jesus had not occurred. If this is true, the Gospels exist in written form as a response to the problem of a predicted apocalypse not occurring. This certainly would have colored the way the Gospels were written on this issue. That theory is by no means universally accepted, in part because it pre-supposes that Jesus did in fact predict an imminent apocalypse, which is not a universally accepted view.

However, even if the Gospels were not written down as a reaction to the lack of an apocalypse, they still are a generation or two removed from Jesus's day. If a significant number of 1st century Christians believed the return of Jesus and the apocalypse to be imminent, which there is reasonably strong (but not universally accepted) evidence for, it certainly would have had an impact on the composition of the Gospels.

TOOT BOOT
May 25, 2010

CrypticFox posted:

Another thing to keep in mind with regards to the question of whether Jesus predicted an apocalypse within the lifetime of his followers is that the Gospels are rather unreliable sources for this. Most scholars date the composition of Mark, the first Gospel to be written down, to after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.

Doesn't this sorta have to be true though? Either the gospels predicted the future or they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem had already taken place. You can't really affirm the former while attempting unbiased study.

Keromaru5
Dec 28, 2012

Pictured: The Wolf Of Gubbio (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Josef bugman posted:

How much of this was contemporaneous with Christ himself? I don't remember where I read it but some people argued that his life was more moulded to fit the Messiah ideal post death, rather than something done by Christ himself during his lifetime.
*Shrug* I dunno. I've long since given up on any consideration about the "historical Jesus." The one in the Gospels and proclaimed by the Church is the one we've got, and all of them have them declaring it in some way, as well as depicting him as aware of his coming death and resurrection. And one of the clauses in the Nicene Creed does say "I believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church," so in some ways it kinda comes down to whether you trust them as well.

In one sense you're right, because one thing the Gospels do agree on is how enigmatic he was before his death. Even the Apostles who told him "You are the Messiah" didn't understand what was really going on until his resurrection. Of course, the difference is that "post death" doesn't mean much if he did rise from the dead, in which case Christ himself would be the one putting his life into perspective. The other thing is that in a lot of ways Jesus doesn't fulfill the role of Messiah as expected by Jews at that time. They expected a fully human David-like leader who would take charge of Israel, drive out the Romans, and establish a new kingdom in Israel. The Virgin Birth, death and resurrection, and divine Sonship don't enter into it at all, even in modern Judaism. For the Apostles and the Church, Jesus completely reinvented the concept of the Messiah, and of God himself, and so the Apostles and the Church reinterpreted the Hebrew Scriptures in light of Jesus, and wrote the New Testament in light of that new understanding.

Josef bugman posted:

And how do Christians square this point of view with the lack of apocalypse?
In two ways: first, that even if the Apostles believed the world would end within their lifetimes, Jesus himself would have known it would take a while. Then there's the even more eschatological take: that the resurrection is the beginning of the Kingdom of God; death has been trampled down, God has united with Man, the end times have begun, and even if they kill us, the Roman Empire won't have the last word.

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"

TOOT BOOT posted:

Doesn't this sorta have to be true though? Either the gospels predicted the future or they were written after the destruction of Jerusalem had already taken place. You can't really affirm the former while attempting unbiased study.

I didn't mean to imply anything about any predictions they may or may not have made, I just was using the date of the temple's destruction as an explanation for how Mark is dated to after 70 AD, or just before it.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



Josef bugman posted:

Could you provide a bit of a quote about the third bit, as I am unsure too!

Dukkha, right? The belief that things "are" and that no moral weight can be given to them is very hard for me to wrap my head around. And if I face it by saying "this is part of me". No-one moves on from trauma or pain and "accepting" those things is as near as I can get to feeling blasphemous. I don't accept those things, I reject that any correctly built system would allow these things to flourish.

How are we defining "utility"? Because, whilst it might not be doing me any good I also can't say that it is doing me any ill. Like if we applied this more widely it shades rapidly into "drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not" territory.

I don't think one exists either, but I think one should. The guilty should suffer, so I do. It's not enough, but it is all I can do at present.
I cannot provide you an easy specific quote because this is a gestalt impression from your overall conversation. Please take this with charity as it comes from a place of love, but it seems that you are very insistent that your interpretation of reality is true, and that it always tends towards claiming that it is important that you continue to suffer. I do not think this accords with your other sentiments, for instance towards the material support and comforting of as many people as possible and a generally socialist outlook.

You can still have morality without accepting some kind of cosmic law-giver created this law. Morality is ultimately what sentient beings do to other sentient beings; what shall that thing be? What effects do some actions create, that we can observe? What effects do other actions create? In this case, I believe that you are importing a punishment-based approach to things, saying that it is good to whip and scold and contain and abuse, which is at odds with both the observed and incomplete evidence we can see in our mortal lives and a fairly reliable strain in ethical teaching, extending beyond the Buddha and his students.

Also, "I can't say it is doing me any ill," this one I can quote you on:

Josef bugman posted:

This is what me posting is. I am not entirely joking. I sometimes don't leave the house or talk to anyone because "this" is safe.
That was like, two hours ago. It is doing you ill. You may find this ill FAMILIAR, but that does not mean it is not ill. If I am used to being struck in the face by my brother, if I find it familiar, if I know many others who experience the same things and still live human lives - it is still not good, either for my face or because it is an act of violence.

I understand the dril tweet you are citing, but I think the point you make there is fatuous. I do not think the dril tweet makes a strong supporting argument for your own personal misery.

e: The general question of how to consider utility is a much grander question and I do not have a lot of like, deep bench of citations to make here. However, we can look at the fruit of the actions, or of analogous action. Police states are not therapeutic; people generally do not derive benefit from being imprisoned, particularly in abusive prisons; people do not learn a lesson from being executed by the state. If these methods do not bear fruit for the reform of criminals (and a burglar or a murderer is a criminal even if a non-violent drug offender is not), why would they bear fruit for others? Should we all report to prison immediately, for its immense moral value, that we will be punished, even for things we may have forgotten?

Nessus fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 21, 2021

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"

Keromaru5 posted:

*Shrug* I dunno. I've long since given up on any consideration about the "historical Jesus." The one in the Gospels and proclaimed by the Church is the one we've got, and all of them have them declaring it in some way, as well as depicting him as aware of his coming death and resurrection. And one of the clauses in the Nicene Creed does say "I believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church," so in some ways it kinda comes down to whether you trust them as well.

I agree with this point as well. All we have is a record of how people reacted to Jesus. That tells us a lot about Jesus, but its still very limited. There are a lot of questions pursued by NT scholars about the historical Jesus that would never be pursued about a non-religiously important figure who had identical levels of documentation. Where a historian would admit that a question cannot be answered with available evidence, NT scholars often try to press forward.

However, in my opinion, we can still gain a lot of religiously useful insight by looking at these same questions from the perspective of Jesus's followers. Instead of asking whether Jesus while on Earth believed the apocalypse was imminent, a question that likely will never be satisfactorily answered, we can ask whether his followers believed this. While perhaps not as useful as knowing whether or not Jesus explicitly preached this, it is a question that is actually possible to answer.

White Coke
May 29, 2015

Night10194 posted:

But again, all this is the secular scholastic interpretation. As a believer, there's a lot to add on to/into there when viewing the story from that perspective. Where are you encountering this take? If it's from, like, a professor in a religious studies program I wouldn't be that surprised.

E: Another important thing to add is that in this take, usually people believe the teachings are primarily what's in the scriptures, because the Gospels were designed to get Jesus's teachings wider attention; they might have various alterations to get through to an audience better or emphasize different aspects of it, but they're our best evidence for what he taught and some of them are very close to his time, so there isn't a lot of reason to believe his teachings were somehow something radically different than the Gospels themselves. If they were, they were in a way we have no evidence for and thus can't say much about. When you're dealing with ancient history you're always dealing with 'this is our best guess from available sources' and 'this is acknowledging that this is the source we've got so we have to work off it'. Thus, a historian who believed in a historical Jesus (and there's evidence for him existing, certainly, and his existence is extremely plausible) would probably say that the Gospels are reasonable evidence of his teachings as a preacher.

Non-believing biblical scholars. It comes up in responses they've written to the idea that Jesus didn't exist. They argue that he did exist, but that if you want to really challenge Christians you should bring up that Jesus predicted an apocalypse within the lifetime of his followers. And because it didn't happen subsequent Christians adapted the religion to cope with that failed expectation. And that's where the issue of what the "historical" Jesus taught versus what the worshipped Jesus taught comes in.

Keromaru5 posted:

In two ways: first, that even if the Apostles believed the world would end within their lifetimes, Jesus himself would have known it would take a while. Then there's the even more eschatological take: that the resurrection is the beginning of the Kingdom of God; death has been trampled down, God has united with Man, the end times have begun, and even if they kill us, the Roman Empire won't have the last word.

Both are fair points, we're getting versions of what Jesus's students thought he taught them, and that even without the Kingdom of God on Earth, we already know the way to enter into it thanks to Christ. The end of the age and beginning of the next has happened thanks to Christ, but it wasn't as dramatic as people were expecting.

TOOT BOOT
May 25, 2010

Depending on how you look at it the destruction of the culturual and religious center of Jewish life was certainly a form of apocalypse for many of Jesus's followers.

Night10194
Feb 13, 2012

We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

TOOT BOOT posted:

Depending on how you look at it the destruction of the culturual and religious center of Jewish life was certainly a form of apocalypse for many of Jesus's followers.

Yeah there's a reason it ended an entire period and tradition of a major religion and led to entirely new paradigms of Judaism. The destruction of the Second Temple was a monumental event.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011

Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund


As a question about the destruction of the second temple, would it ever have been possible to stop the Romans from destroying it? Or would that be a question more apropos for the Milhist thread?



That's fair, will try and work it out. I mean if we don't believe our interpretation of reality is true, we'd stop wouldn't we. I think it comes down to defining and realising that I am not other people. That difference or separation means that others are/can be worthy because they are not me. I'm me, and my choices are crappy ones.

But then morality becomes a matter of popular vote. Which I don't think can be true, or at least I hope is not true. It is good to abuse oneself if it is a choice you've made about something you believe you deserve. It is not fair to do that to others, because they don't deserve it.

I wouldn't say that violence is necessarily wrong. I don't see it as an ill aprioi and, unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that it is an ill. If everything is in flux all the time and all that sort of thing, then we can't prove that hurting yourself isn't okay. (also quick side note, but my spellcheck keeps trying to change "apriori into "DiCaprio" which is hilarious.

That's fair! People don't learn a lesson, and it's why I am generally against a carceral state, but at the same time I see the value in penance and atonement. And sometimes, yeah I do want to go to prison forever, but I still stick around for what needs doing, and for the harm it might cause others.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



Josef bugman posted:

That's fair, will try and work it out. I mean if we don't believe our interpretation of reality is true, we'd stop wouldn't we. I think it comes down to defining and realising that I am not other people. That difference or separation means that others are/can be worthy because they are not me. I'm me, and my choices are crappy ones.

But then morality becomes a matter of popular vote. Which I don't think can be true, or at least I hope is not true. It is good to abuse oneself if it is a choice you've made about something you believe you deserve. It is not fair to do that to others, because they don't deserve it.

I wouldn't say that violence is necessarily wrong. I don't see it as an ill aprioi and, unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that it is an ill. If everything is in flux all the time and all that sort of thing, then we can't prove that hurting yourself isn't okay. (also quick side note, but my spellcheck keeps trying to change "apriori into "DiCaprio" which is hilarious.

That's fair! People don't learn a lesson, and it's why I am generally against a carceral state, but at the same time I see the value in penance and atonement. And sometimes, yeah I do want to go to prison forever, but I still stick around for what needs doing, and for the harm it might cause others.
I formally decline to be included in these categories if they are to be used for the purposes of an interior narrative that you are dumber than others.

On the topic of morality being a matter of popular vote, I don't follow. Some things kind of actually are, but these are "matters of custom," which may well be brutally important for individuals but are to some extent due to the local consensus, which can be changed. Some things, such as harming others, are harmful for reasons external to local traditions. I don't follow your example, and it reads to me as "Well, I'm uniquely depraved and need to be punished, but other people are okay." Most people are parsing this as depressive self-talk, because it sounds exactly like depressive self-talk.

Violence and harm to others is, I think, always bad; but sometimes it is a justifiable bad based on the specific conditions. The fact that an action could in some cases be both bad and good, in different avenues, is part of the complexity of life.

I think that feelings along the lines of, "I should go to prison forever," are not true and accurate perceptions. I hesitate to speculate on their root causes in your particular case, but whatever they are - even if you like, blew up your entire family and their kitten rehabilitation facility when you ere a teenager - nothing is worthy, in my view, of punishment that lasts forever. In the words of Prince, that's a mighty long time.

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"

Josef bugman posted:

As a question about the destruction of the second temple, would it ever have been possible to stop the Romans from destroying it? Or would that be a question more apropos for the Milhist thread?


It is very unlikely that the Jewish rebels could have stopped the Roman forces from entering Jerusalem and the temple. They were so militarily out-matched that it would have required a remarkable series of events for the rebels to maintain control of Jerusalem indefinitely. However, according to Josephus, Titus, the commander of the Roman army besieging Jerusalem did not actually want to destroy the temple. He says that the destruction of the temple only occurred because Jewish rebels set fires in the path of the Roman army to try to stop them from reaching the temple, which led the Romans to set counter-fires that ultimately engulfed the temple. Josephus is sometimes biased towards the Romans, but he is generally a fairly reliable source who saw events first hand. His assertion that Titus did not enter the city with the intention of destroying the temple seems quite plausible. The extreme tactics used by the Jewish rebels are well attested, and definitely could have caused Titus to change his mind and support destroying the city and the temple. This is in line with Roman tactics elsewhere, where they attempted to act with a relatively light hand at first, but reacted extremely harshly to continued resistance after a city's walls had been breached.

shame on an IGA
Apr 8, 2005

Josef bugman posted:

That's fair, will try and work it out. I mean if we don't believe our interpretation of reality is true, we'd stop wouldn't we. I think it comes down to defining and realising that I am not other people. That difference or separation means that others are/can be worthy because they are not me. I'm me, and my choices are crappy ones.

But then morality becomes a matter of popular vote. Which I don't think can be true, or at least I hope is not true. It is good to abuse oneself if it is a choice you've made about something you believe you deserve. It is not fair to do that to others, because they don't deserve it.

I wouldn't say that violence is necessarily wrong. I don't see it as an ill aprioi and, unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that it is an ill. If everything is in flux all the time and all that sort of thing, then we can't prove that hurting yourself isn't okay. (also quick side note, but my spellcheck keeps trying to change "apriori into "DiCaprio" which is hilarious.

That's fair! People don't learn a lesson, and it's why I am generally against a carceral state, but at the same time I see the value in penance and atonement. And sometimes, yeah I do want to go to prison forever, but I still stick around for what needs doing, and for the harm it might cause others.

I'm completely serious here, please watch Neon Genesis Evangelion. I felt this way about myself for a long time and watching a fictional character do exactly the same thing and feeling the compassion I refused to have for myself for someone doing exactly that, because they were doing exactly that, was the jolt I needed to finally wake up and be ok to myself.

shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jan 21, 2021

Gaius Marius
Oct 9, 2012

Watch rahxephon instead

White Coke
May 29, 2015
I find it comforting to learn that every generation of Christians going back to the first has had people predicting that the world is definitely going to end in their life times. I wonder if they also had people who thought that they could decode the scriptures to get things like winning lottery ticket numbers.

Thirteen Orphans
Dec 2, 2012

I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you.

White Coke posted:

I find it comforting to learn that every generation of Christians going back to the first has had people predicting that the world is definitely going to end in their life times. I wonder if they also had people who thought that they could decode the scriptures to get things like winning lottery ticket numbers.

I'm positive the "Bible Code" folks have at least tried it.

Nessus
Dec 22, 2003

After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!



White Coke posted:

I find it comforting to learn that every generation of Christians going back to the first has had people predicting that the world is definitely going to end in their life times. I wonder if they also had people who thought that they could decode the scriptures to get things like winning lottery ticket numbers.
I think some of that stuff requires ready access to the Scriptures themselves. While I am not sure how literate or illiterate populations like European peasantry in the middle ages actually were, I am confident they probably did not have home access to the Bible.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CrypticFox
Dec 19, 2019

"You are one of the most incompetent of tablet writers"

Nessus posted:

I think some of that stuff requires ready access to the Scriptures themselves. While I am not sure how literate or illiterate populations like European peasantry in the middle ages actually were, I am confident they probably did not have home access to the Bible.

There were still plenty of educated people who had the ability to read the bible, and some of them came up with some pretty wild ideas. A number of medieval monks wrote truly bizarre treatises attempting to interpret the bible.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply