Why The Christian's Laughter Is Full Of Pain

[Glaswegian]

I don't agree with the generalization either, though I will say I have a first-hand sense of how some ways of approaching Christianity are fairly described in the OP.

You say that 'some ways of approaching Christianity are fairly described in the OP' and that you 'have a first-hand sense of' them. Would you care to say a little more about them, doppelganger?

 

[Sunstone]

I think we need to give the OP more credit than that. I hate that it was applied to all, because I know many Christians to whom this does not apply, but there is a very real sense of truth to which he spoke. Whether it is 20% or 40% or 60%, the impression is not fantasy. I've gone through the last 8 years of my life with pretty much the same impression of the vast majority of Christians. My sympathies to the contrary are personal - I've found a personal God, the same God, I believe, that Christians worship. But, there is a prevailing reality in Christianity and Christian culture that has created the impression that is the antecedent to the OP.

So, while I think it is important for the well being of this community, that we demonstrate pluralism and tolerance to all religions, and discourage our members from making posts that paint everyone of a single religion with one brush, we can still stop and listen to the points he brought up.

Christians on this forum should also be aware that these are not impressions drawn from just one person, but many people (non-Christians) have experienced the same impressions. And so long as we can discuss these impressions in a compassionate and objective way, maybe something good can come from it.

Anyone who can write as well as the author of the OP can write an OP that does not commit the fallacy of sweeping generalization. There is no excuse for the irrational prejudice displayed in the OP.

Having said that, I do agree that some of the points raised in the OP are worth discussion.

 

[FatMan]

There are certainly some points worth discussion, but this "pain in laughter" concept is pure bunk. As a person who has traveled the comedy circuit for years, you can recognize certain laughters. There is nervous laughter, there is excited laughter, there is expected laughter where one laughs because he or she thinks they should, there is forced laughter, to avoid somebody being embarrassed, but very rarely is there pained laughter.

My Dad sounds like a hyena being gutted when he laughs and I've always seen it as being the most genuine laugh of anyone I've known, because my Dad may not laugh much, but when he does - it's a doozy.

Maybe the other points in the OP have merit. I don't know because I was too busy laughing in derision at the "pain" concept.

 

[sillygeezer10]

If there is any pained innerselves caused by religion, it is of legalism or controlism. Legalist or controlist religions can depress anybody. It's not just fundamentalist Christianity, it can apply to fundamentalist Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Roscurianism, any other extremist, controlist and legalist versions of religions. For non religious, it's controlism and menace. You can't generalise, it can affect anybody.

Man, you should know better. Either that or prove it. Truly pained individuals rarely laugh or never laugh, if they laugh, they cry afterwards. Truly happy people almost alway find a good reason to laugh and/or share great moments with themselves or other people. Humanity's like that.

 

[may]

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ said: "Happy are you who weep now, because you will laugh," and, "Woe, you who are laughing now, because you will mourn and weep." (Lu 6:21, 25) Jesus was evidently pointing out that those who were sad because of bad religious conditions then prevailing in Israel could have their weeping changed to laughter by faith in Him,
Jehovah is "the happy God" and wants his servants to be happy. (1Ti 1:11)

 

[Glaswegian]

I think the OP is trying to express the view that there is an inherent demetia associated with religions that emphasise harmful self-denial and self-estrangement under the guise of the virtue of Selflessness. It's more of that Self-bashing we talked about on previous threads: we agreed it is not a good thing and it isn't.

This is a good point you've made here, Godlike - and I agree with it entirely. Certain forms of self-denial which the Christian religion has traditionally emphasised are extremely harmful. More than this - these forms of self-denial actually serve to disguise a sinister motive on the part of those who practise them (e.g., the Christian ascetic idolised by the Church). I've written about this subject in another post in this forum. Here is an extract from it which will give you a clearer idea of what I mean:

Throughout the centuries the Christian ascetic has inspired a feeling of fear and wonder in the human herd. The reason why the Christian ascetic is the source of so much awe is because his existence forces us to ask ourselves a question which is profound, if not alarming: viz. What if it were necessary to be like the Christian ascetic? What if we were required to deny ourselves in the way that he does? What if God wanted us to live like that too? Needless to say, this is a dreadful possibility for the sensuous or worldly man to have to confront - the possibility that, in the eyes of God, his whole way of life is morally wrong compared with the Christian ascetic's and therefore utterly damnable.

Now, you would be naive to think that the Christian ascetic turns against his self and forgoes the pleasures of this world purely for the sake of his spiritual development and welfare. As we shall see, Christian asceticism has little to do with spiritual 'purity' but a great deal to do with something altogether mundane. So let's take a peek at what lurks behind the mask of Christian asceticism and its cognates - e.g., Christian 'abstinence', Christian 'unworldliness', Christian 'sacrifice', Christian 'selflessness', Christian 'humility', etc....

What should be noted right away about the Christian ascetic is that it is not enough for him to witness his own turning from the world, his own denial of self, his own suffering. No. He needs others to witness these things as well. Why is this? Well, the reason for this is because the Christian ascetic seeks - either consciously or unconsciously - to induce via the spectacle of his suffering a certain affect in his audience: specifically, a depressive affect (e.g., pity, guilt, existential angst, gloom, self-doubt, self-condemnation, self-loathing, etc.) Thus, the Christian ascetic's suffering is driven by a malign purpose: namely, to undermine the mental and emotional well-being of whoever is unfortunate enough to cross his path and empathise with him. Nietzsche provides the following illustration of how this devious strategy works:

'Observe how children weep and cry, so that they will be pitied, how they wait for the moment when their condition will be noticed. Or live among the ill and depressed, and question whether their eloquent laments and whimpering, the spectacle of their misfortune, is not basically aimed at hurting those present. The pity that the spectators then express consoles the weak and suffering, inasmuch as they see that, despite all their weakness, they still have at least one power: the power to hurt.'

The Christian ascetic, then, seeks to hurt and incapacitate those individuals who, unlike himself, have no need of pity: viz. the powerful, the noble, the masterful, the vigorous, the stable, the resolute - in a word, the healthy type of individual. Because the Christian ascetic is a weak and decadent type every healthy human being serves as a constant reminder of his own sickly condition. The healthy individual's natural vitality and capacity to live confidently, fearlessly and without remorse are a source of pain to the Christian ascetic, and they inflame his secret spite. Therefore, his ultimate goal is to disable the healthy individual by inveigling the latter to turn against not just himself but life in toto (i.e., the 'earthly realm' in religio-speak). The Christian ascetic accomplishes this through the spectacle of his own suffering and mortification for the mere sight of him is sufficient to subdue an onlooker's natural energy and lust for life. The Christian ascetic functions as the scarecrow of life for his entire existence is an argument against it: thus, he effectively undermines the healthy individual through sowing seeds of self-doubt in him and by casting a shadow over life in general. By sabotaging the healthy individual in this way, the Christian ascetic obtains 'a kind of pleasure from it for his self-image revives - he is still important enough to inflict harm on others'. Christian asceticism, then, is a covert means by which the sickly type of human being exerts power over stronger types.

 

[James the Persian]

This is a good point you've made here, Godlike - and I agree with it entirely. Certain forms of self-denial which the Christian religion has traditionally emphasised are extremely harmful. More than this - these forms of self-denial actually serve to disguise a sinister motive on the part of those who practise them (e.g., the Christian ascetic idolised by the Church). I've written about this subject in another post in this forum. Here is an extract from it which will give you a clearer idea of what I mean:

Throughout the centuries the Christian ascetic has inspired a feeling of fear and wonder in the human herd. The reason why the Christian ascetic is the source of so much awe is because his existence forces us to ask ourselves a question which is profound, if not alarming: viz. What if it were necessary to be like the Christian ascetic? What if we were required to deny ourselves in the way that he does? What if God wanted us to live like that too? Needless to say, this is a dreadful possibility for the sensuous or worldly man to have to confront - the possibility that, in the eyes of God, his whole way of life is morally wrong compared with the Christian ascetic's and therefore utterly damnable.

Now, you would be naive to think that the Christian ascetic turns against his self and forgoes the pleasures of this world purely for the sake of his spiritual development and welfare. As we shall see, Christian asceticism has little to do with spiritual 'purity' but a great deal to do with something altogether mundane. So let's take a peek at what lurks behind the mask of Christian asceticism and its cognates - e.g., Christian 'abstinence', Christian 'unworldliness', Christian 'sacrifice', Christian 'selflessness', Christian 'humility', etc....

What should be noted right away about the Christian ascetic is that it is not enough for him to witness his own turning from the world, his own denial of self, his own suffering. No. He needs others to witness these things as well. Why is this? Well, the reason for this is because the Christian ascetic seeks - either consciously or unconsciously - to induce via the spectacle of his suffering a certain affect in his audience: specifically, a depressive affect (e.g., pity, guilt, existential angst, gloom, self-doubt, self-condemnation, self-loathing, etc.) Thus, the Christian ascetic's suffering is driven by a malign purpose: namely, to undermine the mental and emotional well-being of whoever is unfortunate enough to cross his path and empathise with him. Nietzsche provides the following illustration of how this devious strategy works:

'Observe how children weep and cry, so that they will be pitied, how they wait for the moment when their condition will be noticed. Or live among the ill and depressed, and question whether their eloquent laments and whimpering, the spectacle of their misfortune, is not basically aimed at hurting those present. The pity that the spectators then express consoles the weak and suffering, inasmuch as they see that, despite all their weakness, they still have at least one power: the power to hurt.'

The Christian ascetic, then, seeks to hurt and incapacitate those individuals who, unlike himself, have no need of pity: viz. the powerful, the noble, the masterful, the vigorous, the stable, the resolute - in a word, the healthy type of individual. Because the Christian ascetic is a weak and decadent type every healthy human being serves as a constant reminder of his own sickly condition. The healthy individual's natural vitality and capacity to live confidently, fearlessly and without remorse are a source of pain to the Christian ascetic, and they inflame his secret spite. Therefore, his ultimate goal is to disable the healthy individual by inveigling the latter to turn against not just himself but life in toto (i.e., the 'earthly realm' in religio-speak). The Christian ascetic accomplishes this through the spectacle of his own suffering and mortification for the mere sight of him is sufficient to subdue an onlooker's natural energy and lust for life. The Christian ascetic functions as the scarecrow of life for his entire existence is an argument against it: thus, he effectively undermines the healthy individual through sowing seeds of self-doubt in him and by casting a shadow over life in general. By sabotaging the healthy individual in this way, the Christian ascetic obtains 'a kind of pleasure from it for his self-image revives - he is still important enough to inflict harm on others'. Christian asceticism, then, is a covert means by which the sickly type of human being exerts power over stronger types.

You really don't have a clue. I come from probably the most ascetic strand of Christianity (along with possibly the OOs). All of us are ascetics to one degree or another and it has nothing to do with the public display you suggest. In fact such public displays are decidedly frowned on and discouraged. Ascetic practices are purely for working on the self which is why such things as our fasting practices are agreed on an individual basis with our Spiritual Fathers and why judging others on how they fast is considered very bad indeed. All of our practices are between us, our Spiritual Father and God - in other words private and not to be put on display.

What you describe would indeed be an abuse, but it is not Christian asceticism. It bears little to no resemblance to the practices or beliefs of say the Desert Fathers of the Thebaid or the monstics of the Holy Mountain. Those who are truly famed for their asceticism may provoke in us awe, of their great faith, but they certainly never provoke fear. Far from it, they provoke feelings of love. And as for requiring that others see their feats of asceticism, you couldn't be more wrong. Just to make such a display would be considered a sign of prelest, or spiritual deception, humility being one of the most valued virtues. Far from seeking an audience, our ascetics retreated to the desert and often worked on themselves entirely alone.

Now I don't doubt that you have in mind certain ostentatious medieval 'ascetics' in the Roman Catholic Church, who would publicly flagellate themselves and the like. This, however, is a peculiarity of one time and culture and was never accepted practice amongst the whole Church - it is a perversion of Christian asceticism, not an example of it. It is an example of faux asceticism and false humility and not the genuine article. The purpose of genuine Christian asceticism is to tame the passions, not inflame them by trying to outdo our neighbour in displays of self-flagellation. This is one reason that certain saints beloved of post-Schism westerners (Francis of Assisi, for instance) are unlikely ever to be accepted by us even if we do achieve a reunion - the sort of false humility displayed by very public acts of self-humiliation made by way of repentance on Francis' part are inconsistent with a genuine Christian faith.

James

 

[Glaswegian]

An excellent example of a Christian ascetic making a public spectacle of himself is St. Simeon Stylites (390-459) who spent about forty years on top of a sixty-foot column in the desert east of Antioch. During those long years many thousands of Christians flocked to see Simeon Stylites perched high above them in the desert sky. Simeon Stylites excited much wonder and adulation among the Christian rabble who no doubt emitted lots of 'oohs' and 'aahs' as they pointed him out to each other with mouths agog. Why was this Christian ascetic made a saint? Not for living usefully and performing charitable works but simply for being a crass exhibitionist who wasted forty years of his life. To rational individuals, Simeon Stylites was a useless eater in the fullest possible sense of that term.

 

[Sunstone]

An excellent example of a Christian ascetic making a public spectacle of himself is St. Simeon Stylites (390-459) who spent about forty years on top of a sixty-foot column in the desert east of Antioch. During those long years many thousands of Christians flocked to see Simeon Stylites perched high above them in the desert sky. Simeon Stylites excited much wonder and adulation among the Christian rabble who no doubt emitted lots of 'oohs' and 'aahs' as they pointed him out to each other with mouths agog. Why was this Christian ascetic made a saint? Not for living usefully and performing charitable works but simply for being a crass exhibitionist who wasted forty years of his life. To rational individuals, Simeon Stylites was a useless eater in the fullest possible sense of that term.

Your example fails to demonstrate your thesis that Stylites and others like him became ascetics to hurt people.

 

[James the Persian]

An excellent example of a Christian ascetic making a public spectacle of himself is St. Simeon Stylites (390-459) who spent about forty years on top of a sixty-foot column in the desert east of Antioch. During those long years many thousands of Christians flocked to see Simeon Stylites perched high above them in the desert sky. Simeon Stylites excited much wonder and adulation among the Christian rabble who no doubt emitted lots of 'oohs' and 'aahs' as they pointed him out to each other with mouths agog. Why was this Christian ascetic made a saint? Not for living usefully and performing charitable works but simply for being a crass exhibitionist who wasted forty years of his life. To rational individuals, Simeon Stylites was a useless eater in the fullest possible sense of that term.

St. Simeon Stylites did not make a public spectacle of himself. He withdrew to the desert. If crowds of people chose to follow him there and gawp, that is their concern and not his (he could hardly compel them to move on). You also prove your ignorance of the saint in writing as you do. I suggest you read the following and see just what he did precisely to avoid others seeing his ascetic feats:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Symeon_the_Stylite

Your charcaterisation of his motives could not be further from the truth and your willingness to slander a great saint of the Church about which you clearly know next to nothing, just displays your anti-Christian bigotry for all to see.

And he wasn't made a saint, but recognised as one. The Church does not 'make saints' as you appear to understand it. And nobody is recognised as a saint for 'good works' or lack of them but because God makes it apparent that they have been saved. 'Living usefully' as you put it assumes that the only way one can be useful is materially. Surely you realise that this is an utterly ridiculous proposition to make to a Christian? I stand by my original conclusion:

You really don't have a clue.

James

 

[Searching]

Wow. The OP and subsequent posts by the thread starter are painfully demented

 

[Glaswegian]

The belief that asceticism leads to spiritual purity is an example of Christian ignorance on this matter. Religious asceticism is, at bottom, a form of egoism. This truth has long been recognised by Buddhism and accounts for why the Buddha advocated the 'Middle Way' as a more effective path to spiritual purity than asceticism. The Buddha argued that 'the extremes of devotion to mere sense-pleasures and devotion to ascetic self-torment' must be avoided. Having experienced both of these extremes for himself he regarded them as 'spiritual dead-ends'.

Dr. Padmasiri de Silva, one of the foremost commentators on Buddhist psychology, writes:

'During the time of the Buddha there were some religious teachers who upheld that the mortification of the body would result in the purification of the soul. The path of self-mortification was one of the methods tried by Gotama for eight long years and rejected, and his Middle Way offers a striking contrast to the methods of self-mortification practised by the Jains. The deliberate attempt to live through painful experiences was condemned by the Buddha, who saw some of these methods as the expression of craving and deflected aggression. He also condemned forms of punitive asceticism which required self-inflicted punishments for guilt in the form of penances, considering all violent attempts to deal with the problem of human suffering as lacking in insight and being subject to the delusion of the ego in a subtle form.'

 

[James the Persian]

The belief that asceticism leads to spiritual purity is an example of Christian ignorance on this matter. Religious asceticism is, at bottom, a form of egoism. This truth has long been recognised by Buddhism and accounts for why the Buddha advocated the 'Middle Way' as a more effective path to spiritual purity than asceticism. The Buddha argued that 'the extremes of devotion to mere sense-pleasures and devotion to ascetic self-torment' must be avoided. Having experienced both of these extremes for himself he regarded them as 'spiritual dead-ends'.

Dr. Padmasiri de Silva, one of the foremost commentators on Buddhist psychology, writes:

'During the time of the Buddha there were some religious teachers who upheld that the mortification of the body would result in the purification of the soul. The path of self-mortification was one of the methods tried by Gotama for eight long years and rejected, and his Middle Way offers a striking contrast to the methods of self-mortification practised by the Jains. The deliberate attempt to live through painful experiences was condemned by the Buddha, who saw some of these methods as the expression of craving and deflected aggression. He also condemned forms of punitive asceticism which required self-inflicted punishments for guilt in the form of penances, considering all violent attempts to deal with the problem of human suffering as lacking in insight and being subject to the delusion of the ego in a subtle form.'

Seeing as we don't believe that ascetic practices lead to spiritual purity and would join the Buddha in condemning the sorts of practices he condemned (as should have been abundantly clear from my first post), this is a completely irrelevant post. Egoism is just as strongly condemned in Christianity as it is in Buddhism (and I was a practicing Buddhist for a couple of years and the degree of asceticism in both faiths is broadly comparable). I am puzzled as to exactly why you think that quoting a Buddhist is going to convince a Christian that your hatred of our faith and saints is actually based in fact rather than bigotry, though.

James

 

[*Paul*]

O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go

Author:

Geroge Matheson, 1842-1906Musician:Albert L. Peace, 1844-1912
O Love that wilt not let me go,
I rest my weary soul in Thee;
I give Thee back the life I owe,
That in Thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.

O Light that follow'st all my way,
I yield my flick'ring torch to Thee;
My heart restores its borrowed ray,
That in Thy sunshine's blaze its day
May brighter, fairer be.

O Joy that seekest me thro' pain,
I cannot close my heart to Thee;
I trace the rainbow thro' the rain,
And feel the promise is not vain
That morn shall tearless be.

O Cross that liftest up my head,
I dare not ask to fly from Thee;
I lay in dust life's glory dead,
And from the ground there blossoms red
Life that shall endless be.

O Faith that quickened me in death,
I owe my inward life to Thee;
By Thee God's Son is mine indeed,
And has supplied my ev'ry need
By Blood at Calvary.

 

[Mister Emu]

When you hear the laughter of some Christians do you ever wonder why there is so much pain in it? Why it often has the effect of causing tiny alarm bells to start ringing inside of you? Why it can make you solemn and reflective in the way that a great tragedy does? Why you feel a little saddened in its aftermath? Perhaps on witnessing this kind of laughter issuing from the Christian's mouth you have been so shocked by it that you have turned away from him, lowered your head and whispered to yourself: 'My God. The pain in that laughter! Doesn't he realise how awful it sounds?'

No reasonable person would blame you for wondering how the Christian can be blind to the pain in his own laughter given that the pain which fills it is so stark in nature, so blatant and unmistakable, so flagrant as to be nakedly obvious. This is why even though one finds the Christian's laughter excruciating one cannot help but be intrigued by it at the same time. This laughter is so anguished in tone, so forced in its delivery, so hysterical in its outburst that one involuntarily shrinks from it as if from an exploding boil. One feels acutely embarrassed for the Christian on hearing his pained and desperate laughter. Indeed, one is even moved at times to pity him because of it. That said, the pain in the Christian's laughter is so uniquely awful that it demands an explanation.

The reason why the pain in the Christian's laughter creates such a strong impression on rational individuals, and makes them prick up their ears whenever they hear it, is because it reveals more about the Christian's inner being in an instant than a very large book could ever do. What this laughter reveals about the Christian in such an immediate and striking way is that he is an individual who suffers greatly from himself: more precisely, that he is someone to whom something terrible has been done, something shameful, and that the person who has done this terrible and shameful thing to him is none other than himself. How do we know this? Because the Christian's laughter is a laughter which resonates with deep and unrelenting guilt. It is the tortured laughter born of an individual who cannot live with himself, an individual who recognises at some level of his being that he is disgraceful and contemptible, an object to be despised. This is why on hearing it the man of finer feelings and good taste immediately averts his eyes from its source.

The terrible and shameful thing which the Christian has done to himself inwardly, and which fills his laughter with so much pain, is that he has murdered his freedom and integrity for the sake of his religion. The Christian is only too willing to perform this deplorable act of self-sabotage because he is a weakling who is terrified of assuming responsibility and control over his own life and decisions. Rather than determining for himself what kind of person he will become and how he will live, he pretends that a 'Divine Being' exists external to himself so that he can abandon himself to its will and authority. Thus, instead of taking charge of his own existence, instead of being the author of his own destiny, the Christian chooses to adopt an infantile orientation to life by clinging abjectly to his religion, by clinging to a childish delusion, by clinging to the apron strings of 'God'. As a consequence of choosing to be un-free and inauthentic in this way, by choosing to remain locked in a state of permanent infancy, the Christian allows his own existential possibilities to wither and die: so much so, that long before his body expires he becomes something false and vacuous, a shell of a man, a desiccated nonentity, the ghost of what might have been.

The pain in the Christian's laughter, then, should be understood as summarising all the anguish and guilt he feels at having betrayed himself, all the hurt and rage he feels at having neglected and disowned his true potentialities and goals, all his secret shame at having made a travesty of his life. His pained laughter announces to the whole world in a direct and emphatic way that he is a cowardly wretch who dreads his own freedom, that he is unnerved by the innumerable possibilities of existence, that he is so afraid of thinking and acting for himself that he is willing to forgo the possibility of his own self-creation.

Given that what the Christian thinks, says and does are done in almost total compliance and conformity with the directives of a fantasised power which lies outside himself (viz. 'God') this means that he is not really in his 'own' thoughts, not really in his 'own' words, not really in his 'own' actions. This accounts for why he is prey to recurring feelings of emptiness, depersonalization and unreality - and the horrible suspicion that he is merely going through the motions of being alive. The Christian is necessarily divorced from his whole inner life and experience because what he thinks, says and does are informed by, or are done in accordance with, a 'Divine Power' which is perceived as other than himself. The Christian, in effect, exists only in absentia for he is a person who has absconded from himself. His self-being is really a form of death-in-life.

Having considered the above it is hardly surprising, then, that the pain in the Christian's laughter leaves the rational person who has the misfortune to hear it somewhat depressed. For it signifies a human tragedy - the tragedy of an individual who, out of weakness and fear, has failed to achieve an authentic mode of being, who has never grown up, and who has wantonly sacrificed two of the most precious things a human being can possess: viz. his own freedom and integrity.

Regards

James

I got to the dark blue bolded part before I quit, then I went on anyways. Before that it could be an accurate description of some Christians, depressed, don't believe they have any worth, have done something terrible, etc...

Blue part and forwards is a bunch of horse rubbish.

 

[Glaswegian]

Seeing as we don't believe that ascetic practices lead to spiritual purity and would join the Buddha in condemning the sorts of practices he condemned

Tell me, James: what on earth was St. Simeon Stylites doing for forty years on top of that stone column in the desert east of Antioch if he wasn't seeking spiritual purity as a result of this ascetic endeavour? Let me guess: he was waiting for the sun to shine, wasn't he? :beach:

According to your own view since you 'don't believe that ascetic practices lead to spiritual purity' then you must join the Buddha and me in condemning an ascetic like St. Simeon Stylites as a deluded fool.

 

[James the Persian]

Tell me, James: what on earth was St. Simeon Stylites doing for forty years on top of that stone column in the desert east of Antioch if he wasn't seeking spiritual purity as a result of this ascetic endeavour? Let me guess: he was waiting for the sun to shine, wasn't he? :beach:

According to your own view since you 'don't believe that ascetic practices lead to spiritual purity' then you must join the Buddha and me in condemning an ascetic like St. Simeon Stylites as a deluded fool.

Clearly you haven't read the link I provided or you wouldn't have written this. Your understanding of the life of the saint bears only a very vague resemblance to the actual truth. Despite the popular view, he wasn't standing on some tall pillar with some timy surface area, but living in a cell atop a pillar of rock. As to why, it was precisely so that he could remove himself from those who would gawp. He most certainly was not a deluded fool any more than was someone like the Milarepa, a Buddhist. Buddha would not have condemned Milarepa for his practice, nor St. Symeon and you completely misunderstand both faiths to suggest he would. As I said, ascetic practices are used to conquer the passions in much the same way as Buddhists use them to curb attachments. Conquering passions is in turn a way of progressing towards Theosis, much as Buddhists seek to progress towards Enlightenment, but of course you are so utterly bigotted against my faith, despite patently knowing nothing about it, that you simply stop your ears rather than accepting that what we tell you is the truth and that your hatred of us has lead you to form your own, false, understanding of our beliefs. It is you, and not the Christian ascetics, who are acting irrationally in this for you wilfully disregard any evidence that in any way calls into question the bigotry that comforts you so.

James

 

[pete29]

hahahahahahahahahahaha ohhhh the pain hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah:sarcastic

 

[jacquie4000]

While there are some truths to this post, I have met many Christians were their laughter in life and Religion is pure happiness. People come from all walks of life. Some people find Religion due to divorce, drugs or other dramatic circumstances in their life, so they have not found the truth in themselves let alone come to terms with Christianity. But many have been happy with it their entire life. You are picking but a few within Christianity, not the whole.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You should change the title of this thread to, “Against the World-Haters”.

The Christian ascetic, then, seeks to hurt and incapacitate those individuals who, unlike himself, have no need of pity: viz. the powerful, the noble, the masterful, the vigorous, the stable, the resolute - in a word, the healthy type of individual. Because the Christian ascetic is a weak and decadent type every healthy human being serves as a constant reminder of his own sickly condition.

This is true of any religious person, not just Christians. The moment a mystic cries out to God, "Thank you for making me sick so that I might feel your healing touch", they are pretty much incapable of loving themselves or others. They've got to hate themselves. Only God loves them, thus, only God needs to be praised. People, including their own families, lose their importance, because they are reminders of all the weakness the mystic has come to hate in themselves.

There is a certain kind of person, the world-hater, that uses religion as asceticism, as a weapon. They not only seek to destroy themselves, but others. Their entire lives are aimed at mocking what is good and praising what is evil.

The healthy individual's natural vitality and capacity to live confidently, fearlessly and without remorse are a source of pain to the Christian ascetic, and they inflame his secret spite. Therefore, his ultimate goal is to disable the healthy individual by inveigling the latter to turn against not just himself but life in toto (i.e., the 'earthly realm' in religio-speak). The Christian ascetic accomplishes this through the spectacle of his own suffering and mortification for the mere sight of him is sufficient to subdue an onlooker's natural energy and lust for life.

Again, it is important to remember that this is people of ALL religions. All the world-haters, the life-haters, the human-haters... they use religion as an escape and as a weapon. It has nothing necessarily to do with Christianity.

The Christian ascetic functions as the scarecrow of life for his entire existence is an argument against it: thus, he effectively undermines the healthy individual through sowing seeds of self-doubt in him and by casting a shadow over life in general. By sabotaging the healthy individual in this way, the Christian ascetic obtains 'a kind of pleasure from it for his self-image revives - he is still important enough to inflict harm on others'. Christian asceticism, then, is a covert means by which the sickly type of human being exerts power over stronger types.

When you can teach others to devalue themselves, you gain control over their minds. If you get someone to love their weakness more than their strength, you've cut them off from reality, and you've made yourself their idol. If you get someone to love heaven more than they love earth, you've killed them. You've made them useless on earth. They are no longer capable of reasoning with regard to worldly benefits, but will act out in ways to earn heavenly rewards. This makes these people dangerous. But again, this is not just Christianity. The same sickness lies behind homicide bombers in the Middle East.