Why The Christian's Laughter Is Full Of Pain

[Mister Emu]

hahahahahahahahahahaha ohhhh the pain hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah hahahah

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Booko]

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.

Please name a few.

And then show how they are universally practiced by Christians.

And how they're harmful.

Thanks.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

hahahahahahahahahahaha ohhhh the pain hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

WOW! The OP is absolutely RIGHT!! :flirt:



Peace,
Mystic

 

[James the Persian]

WOW! The OP is absolutely RIGHT!! :flirt:



Peace,
Mystic

Bet you never realised until today that Buddha would have condemned Milarepa, did you? Isn't it wonderful when people with absolutely no knowledge of a faith try to tell others what that faith teaches?

James

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Please name a few.

And then show how they are universally practiced by Christians.

And how they're harmful.

I don't think that there are any common Christian practices, but there are common Christian ideas that are harmful. The idea of long-suffering as a virtue, the idea of "the first will be last and the last will be first", and the idea of taking up the Cross of Christ are all dangerous and potencially harmful ideologies. I was in church last Sunday and they were singing about how they wanted to be "crusified with Christ" to enjoy "heaven". I mean, there are certain twisted ideas that have come from Scripture that thrive in most churches today, even if they've lost their meaning to the majority of Christians, who sing these songs out of habit, without meaning anything by them.

 

[James the Persian]

I don't think that there are any common Christian practices, but there are common Christian ideas that are harmful. The idea of long-suffering as a virtue, the idea of "the first will be last and the last will be first", and the idea of taking up the Cross of Christ are all dangerous and potencially harmful ideologies. I was in church last Sunday and they were singing about how they wanted to be "crusified with Christ" to enjoy "heaven". I mean, there are certain twisted ideas that have come from Scripture that thrive in most churches today, even if they've lost their meaning to the majority of Christians, who sing these songs out of habit, without meaning anything by them.

Now please answer the question. Why is self-denial (which is all these 'potentially harmful' ideas mean) dangerous? I take that aspect of my faith very seriously indeed (and no that doesn't mean I wish to suffer) and I've yet to se any harm come to me or those around me as a result. On the contrary, denying my passions has resulted in my generally being better balanced and a nicer person - as attested to by those who knew me before I found my faith. So, please do explain.

James

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Now please answer the question. Why is self-denial (which is all these 'potentially harmful' ideas mean) dangerous? I take that aspect of my faith very seriously indeed (and no that doesn't mean I wish to suffer) and I've yet to se any harm come to me or those around me as a result. On the contrary, denying my passions has resulted in my generally being better balanced and a nicer person - as attested to by those who knew me before I found my faith. So, please do explain.

James

There is a balance to be found between selfishness and selflessness. In the psychological community this balance is usually defined by something they call "boundaries". Boundaries help to secure self-esteem, self-respect, and self-reliance. When an individual falls into the extreme of selfishness, they tend to stomp all over other people's boundaries. When an individual falls into the extreme of selflessness, they tend to be stomped upon. Encouraging the masses to allow themselves to be stomped upon and to turn the other cheek, encourages selfish people to crush selfless ones. It places the selfish in a position of power and the selfless in a position of suffering. I don’t believe this is the will of any God.

The ideology of self-sacrifice and long-suffering belittle an individual’s self-respect and often their self-reliance - and this is where it becomes a serious problem. When one denies their own value or, even worse, the value of worldly things, they begin to behave in life-denying and life-demoting ways. Not only do they hurt themselves, but they hurt others as well. Today, in Christianity, this is most widely felt within the family and social group. In Islam, it can be seen in the people who strap bombs to their chest.

Then there is the idea of the first will be last and the last will be first, a concept bred of contempt and envy. Contempt and envy corrupt even the most naturally loving individual, making them cold and calculating. They spit upon the virtues that tend to define "the first": i.e. strength, ambition, self-confidence, self-respect, and self-reliance. They tend to praise the virtues that define "the last": i.e. weakness, suffering, and envy.

When one devalues themselves, they also devalue others. They no longer treat people as if they have worth as individuals. I've seen this happen to all kinds of people from all kinds of religions, not just Christianity.

* it is important to note that I am not attacking Christianity, only the world-haters of every religion. This is not something unique to Christianity or religion *

 

[doppelganger]

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.

That may be a common attribute of aesetics, but not mystics generally. I agree that some mystics are convinced that the only way to step outside social reality is to physically withdraw from it. In my opinion, that's an extreme form of egoism that elevates the individual quest for spiritual experience over love and community. More significantly, it's a complete misunderstanding of where the social reality of "the world" resides. It resides in the mystic's thoughts rather than his temporal or spatial circumstances. To me, a balance between seeing the world as it is and acting within that social reality out of love is the mystic path. And that latter part is just the opposite of aeseticism - it is life-affirming rather than negating.

If it's what someone wants to do (and supporting it or honoring it is what someone else wants to do) that is, of course, their prerogative and probably merely a matter of aesthetics (rather than aesetics ) anyway. Personally, I don't find it inspiring.

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.

With this I heartily agree.

 

[James the Persian]

There is a balance to be found between selfishness and selflessness. In the psychological community this balance is usually defined by something they call "boundaries". Boundaries help to secure self-esteem, self-respect, and self-reliance. When an individual falls into the extreme of selfishness, they tend to stomp all over other people's boundaries. When an individual falls into the extreme of selflessness, they tend to be stomped upon. Encouraging the masses to allow themselves to be stomped upon and to turn the other cheek, encourages selfish people to crush selfless ones. It places the selfish in a position of power and the selfless in a position of suffering. I don’t believe this is the will of any God.

The ideology of self-sacrifice and long-suffering belittle an individual’s self-respect and often their self-reliance - and this is where it becomes a serious problem. When one denies their own value or, even worse, the value of worldly things, they begin to behave in life-denying and life-demoting ways. Not only do they hurt themselves, but they hurt others as well. Today, in Christianity, this is most widely felt within the family and social group. In Islam, it can be seen in the people who strap bombs to their chest.

Then there is the idea of the first will be last and the last will be first, a concept bred of contempt and envy. Contempt and envy corrupt even the most naturally loving individual, making them cold and calculating. They spit upon the virtues that tend to define "the first": i.e. strength, ambition, self-confidence, self-respect, and self-reliance. They tend to praise the virtues that define "the last": i.e. weakness, suffering, and envy.

When one devalues themselves, they also devalue others. They no longer treat people as if they have worth as individuals. I've seen this happen to all kinds of people from all kinds of religions, not just Christianity.

* it is important to note that I am not attacking Christianity, only the world-haters of every religion. This is not something unique to Christianity or religion *

What you are saying is that taking the denial of self to an extreme is unhealthy, then? That I can't deny and the Church most certainly would agree also as, to bring in Glaswegian's example, would the Buddha. But that's true of just about everything. It's not the idea itself that is dangerous, but those who take that idea and run with it further than is healthy - like medieval flagellants, for instance.

The thing is that Christian asceticism simply does not encourage that (any more than Buddhist asceticism does). I can assure you that neither I nor any other person I know who practices Orthodox asceticism under the guidance of the Church (and this is very important) has suffered any ill efects from it. We don't have problems of self-esteem or any of the other things you mentioned. Nor do we have a tendency to allow ourselves to be trampled on. And if you were to think that the ones who really practice asceticism, the monks of Athos would be a good example, are a push over you'd be sorely mistaken.

It seems to me that your argument is not against Christian asceticism at all (nor is Glaswegians's, his being anti-Christian bigotry wrapped in nice prose) but against your own misconception of what that actually means. World hating is not asceticism, it's doceticism and dualism, both condemned heresies. I can't deny that these strands of thought have ever reared their heads in Christianity, because they have in certain groups, but they are far from the teachings of traditional Christian asceticism - even the most ardent hesychast would agree that all of God's creation is fundamentally good.

James

 

[michel]

Please understand that I have a great deal of sympathy for Christianity. My wife and family are Christian. However, my experience of Christianity has led me to believe that many Christians have become consumed with the idea of self-sacrifice. They want less of themselves. They write songs about that. They lose themselves in their religious experience, in their Church, and in the dogma. But this is true of most every religion.

Much of religion begins with fear and guilt, and much of the problems come from that.

I agree in some of what you say; I can admit openly to

Christians have become consumed with the idea of self-sacrifice. They want less of themselves.

Even though I am not a proper Christian..with me though, that comes from neither fear, nor guilt..it just comes from my wanting to "serve".......

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Now please answer the question. Why is self-denial (which is all these 'potentially harmful' ideas mean) dangerous? I take that aspect of my faith very seriously indeed (and no that doesn't mean I wish to suffer) and I've yet to se any harm come to me or those around me as a result. On the contrary, denying my passions has resulted in my generally being better balanced and a nicer person - as attested to by those who knew me before I found my faith. So, please do explain.

James

If it means anything to you, James, my interactions with you have been full of kindness and wisdom on your part. That alone tells me that your path has been giving you something very, very right.



And, for anyone who continues to compare and contrast Buddhism with Christianity as favoring the former over the latter concerning issues of the "self", remember that one of the three Dharma seals - which are aspects that make a concept considered "Buddhist" - is the concept of no-self.



So, I guess that means I'm toast..........just like Milarepa. :foot:




Peace,
Mystic

 

[!Fluffy!]

No, I have never wondered such a thing. Tho I have more than once wondered why people take the time to write long diatribes against Christians (or any other group of people). It makes me wonder if they aren't working out their own insecurities and pain by trying to lift themselves up by putting others down.

Frubals.

To paraphrase the OP, the post says more about the poster than the subject.

Let's face it, we have all heard this kind of laughter from every *brand* of person. It's more appropriate to attribute this kind of off-kilter affect to psychological disorders than to a religion.

 

[doppelganger]

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?

The other common Christian practice (and again, it's not limited to Christianity) that seems to carry a weight of self-hatred to me is the evangelical Christian who insists that he or she has some insight by which to "convict" others of their "sins" so that they will "ask Jesus into their hearts." The approach is dripping with disdain, judgment and self-righteousness.

What's sad about it is the insecurity and fear that must drive a person to say such things to others in the vain hope that the evangelist's vision will be reinforced by forcing by use of fear on others. Ironically, to those who don't respond to fear, it slanders the message of the Gospel and is contemptuous of grace. I even wrote a poem about it recently.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The other common Christian practice (and again, it's not limited to Christianity) that seems to carry a weight of self-hatred to me is the evangelical Christian who insists that he or she has some insight by which to "convict" others of their "sins" so that they will "ask Jesus into their hearts." The approach is dripping with disdain, judgment and self-righteousness.

What's sad about it is the insecurity and fear that must drive a person to say such things to others in the vain hope that the evangelist's vision will be reinforced by forcing by use of fear on others. Ironically, to those who don't respond to fear, it slanders the message of the Gospel and is contemptuous of grace. I even wrote a poem about it recently.

I used to be this way, though not with religion. I was this way with philosophy. I felt compelled to force my opinions on everyone who disagreed with me. The reasons felt inspired by "truth" and good intent, however, upon greater examination, they came from a deep sense of insecurity and a fear of people that didn't see the world the way I saw it. The illusion of wanting to "spread the love of God" is kept up in the rhetoric of the Church, but any experienced Christian will tell you, that pushing beliefs on others doesn't open them up, it turns them off.

True evangelical behavior comes from knowing what you believe and being able to explain it to people that want the light that shines in you.

 

[doppelganger]

The illusion of wanting to "spread the love of God" is kept up in the rhetoric of the Church, but any experienced Christian will tell you, that pushing beliefs on others doesn't open them up, it turns them off.

That's an excellent point. I think it's true of anyone's claim to an objectively "true" ideology, whether recognized as "religious" or not.

 

[NoahideHiker]

DAYum! So all my christian friends who appear so well adjusted, happy and have raised great kids are really delusional and in torment? Those dirty posers!

 

[Glaswegian]

I agree with a great deal of what you write in your post, Radio Frequency X. For example, you are correct when you hold that what I said earlier about asceticism does not apply to Christianity alone. It applies to all religions which teach their followers to hate, renounce, slander and devalue life in this world for the sake of an imaginary life to come in the 'next' world. That implication was very clear to you but not to others it seems. So I'm glad you spelled it out for them.

For the moment I want to focus on what you say in the following quote because it highlights how foolish and pernicious it is for religions to teach their followers to value their supposed 'eternal life' more than their present life.

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.

Now let me provide you with an historical example from long ago which shows the kind of lunacy that can occur when a religion teaches its followers to hate and fear the world and their existence in it. The example comes from Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire and illustrates why the early Church was forced to proscribe suicide among its followers as a means of escaping life.

~o0o~​

The reason why the Christian Church condemns suicide as a 'mortal sin' has to do with a ghastly episode of human history produced by its own teachings: namely, the mania for self-destruction which these teachings provoked among the Christian rabble in the Roman Empire. (Remember, Radio Frequency X, back then the followers of Christianity were illiterate and uneducated almost to a man and, therefore, highly gullible. Oh, I know. Nothing has changed about Christians ever since with regard to that last quality. It is the sine qua non of their faith.)....

....Anyway, back in the time of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church taught its followers that this world of ours was inherently evil, that it was a vale of tears, a place of sin and temptation, an abode of darkness which was overseen by an inconceivably wicked and cunning ruler - 'The Prince Of This World' - who, by the way, is also invisible...(I swear to God, Radio Frequency X, I'm not pulling your leg! That is, indeed, what the Christian Church taught its followers back then - and still does to this day.) Now, the more powerfully the Christian Church instilled in its followers the idea that this world was evil and that their existence in it was something horrible which had to be endured until death finally released them into eternal glory, the more irresistible the temptation to commit suicide became for these poor, suffering creatures.

But that is not all, Radio Frequency X. The powerful desire to escape from the evil of this world and find peace and refuge in the heavenly kingdom of the 'next' world was only one of the factors which drove the Christian to seek his own annihilation. There were two other important features of the early Christian Church's teachings which also conspired to inflame the Christian believer's death wish - viz. the concept of baptism and the concept of martyrdom.

Although the rite of baptism was immensely important to the Christian it was simply not enough by itself to put his troubled mind at ease in this world. Why? Because baptism only served to wash away the Christian's 'original sin'. It did not protect him in any way from the consequences of the sins he might commit subsequent to being baptised. Therefore, as far as the Christian was concerned, baptism might be a wonderful thing but he was still exposed to the possibility of committing sin as long as he remained alive in the world. Yes, as long as he breathed Hell awaited this anguished wretch. One wrong step, one loose word, one lustful glance...Damn! he just had to get out of life, didn't he? And what better way to get out, Radio Frequency X, than martyrdom....

By the fourth century AD the ideology of martyrdom promoted by the Christian Church had taken a firm hold of its followers in the Roman Empire. The prospect of martyrdom appealed tremendously to the Christian for a range of reasons. Some of these reasons are set out by one writer as follows:

'The Christian Church offered posthumous glory to martyrs: their names would be celebrated annually, their passing officially recorded, their relics worshipped. Tertullian, the most bloodthirsty of the Church Fathers, who explicitly forbade his flock even to attempt to escape persecution, also proffered them the sweetest of recompenses - revenge - when he wrote: 'No city which shed Christian blood would escape punishment.' The martyrs would peer down from Paradise and see their enemies tortured eternally in Hell. But above all, martyrdom afforded certain redemption. Just as baptism purged away original sin, so martyrdom wiped out all subsequent transgressions. It was as much a guarantee of Paradise to the early Christians as violent death for the sake of their faith is to...'

...the Islamic terrorists of today.

(Post Continued Below)

 

[lilithu]

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.

:areyoucra I don't know where you get your information from but you and I clearly do not mean the same thing by "mystic." A mystic experiences oneness with God and as a result loves everybody. If they no longer treat their families with special importance it's because they love everybody, not just some poeple. Because the mystic sees God in all of us. And in all things. The stories that I've heard/read of mystics has them rolling around in the muck, because they have no aversion to muck. Muck is divine.

--------

This is not directed at RFX but more at the OP. Tho because I am reminded of my conversation with RFX regarding Rush Limbaugh, I'll put it here.

This culture worships the self. It worships invidualism, lifting that up to the "highest good." We value individual freedom and liberty without recognizing the responsibilities towards humanity that go with that. We live with the delusion of self-autonomy, failing to recognize our interdependancy. We've gotten to the point where we don't even understand the meaning of community, except as a collection of individuals. We view physical pleasure of the body as what is most "real." And we expect immediate gratification, everything faster, faster, faster.

No wonder then, that when religion seeks to remind us of something greater than ourselves, when it suggests that we might have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our liberty for the sake of others, or suggests that there might be some good in denying immediate physical gratification, it gets seen as something alien and harmful by some of us. The OP wants to suggest that Christianity is a moral view that is imposed upon our natural (and therefore better) state. I suggest that what the OP views as natural is no more natural than any other view. It is simply the predominant view of our time, and therefore the easiest one to be blind about.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

:areyoucra I don't know where you get your information from but you and I clearly do not mean the same thing by "mystic." A mystic experiences oneness with God and as a result loves everybody. If they no longer treat their families with special importance it's because they love everybody, not just some poeple. Because the mystic sees God in all of us. And in all things. The stories that I've heard/read of mystics has them rolling around in the muck, because they have no aversion to muck. Muck is divine.

--------

This is not directed at RFX but more at the OP. Tho because I am reminded of my conversation with RFX regarding Rush Limbaugh, I'll put it here.

This culture worships the self. It worships invidualism, lifting that up to the "highest good." We value individual freedom and liberty without recognizing the responsibilities towards humanity that go with that. We live with the delusion of self-autonomy, failing to recognize our interdependancy. We've gotten to the point where we don't even understand the meaning of community, except as a collection of individuals. We view physical pleasure of the body as what is most "real." And we expect immediate gratification, everything faster, faster, faster.

No wonder then, that when religion seeks to remind us of something greater than ourselves, when it suggests that we might have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our liberty for the sake of others, or suggests that there might be some good in denying immediate physical gratification, it gets seen as something alien and harmful by some of us. The OP wants to suggest that Christianity is a moral view that is imposed upon our natural (and therefore better) state. I suggest that what the OP views as natural is no more natural than any other view. It is simply the predominant view of our time, and therefore the easiest one to be blind about.

:clap



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No wonder then, that when religion seeks to remind us of something greater than ourselves, when it suggests that we might have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our liberty for the sake of others, or suggests that there might be some good in denying immediate physical gratification, it gets seen as something alien and harmful by some of us. The OP wants to suggest that Christianity is a moral view that is imposed upon our natural (and therefore better) state. I suggest that what the OP views as natural is no more natural than any other view. It is simply the predominant view of our time, and therefore the easiest one to be blind about.

There is something deeper to the original post that you seem to be missing, which is the difference between life-promoting and life-enjoying philosophies and life-demoting and life-hating philosophies. Christianity and Islam, for example, both have a history of promoting life-demoting and life-hating philosophies, and instead preach a worship and a hoping after the perfect life to come. How can we better our lives, personally and within our families and communities, without maintaining philosophies and ethics that promote and value human life?

There is absolutely nothing innate in religion (not Christianity or Islam) that requires us to hate and reject the world. This is not about culture, but about value-judgments. When people do not value human life, do not value individuality, and fail to promote life in this world, we get nothing but human suffering and misery. Some religious people seem to praise this suffering and misery as being the moral state of rejecting a false and sinful world. These people are dangerous.

There are many people that believe that we have the right to destroy each other and our environment because "others" and "nature" are in the hands of a spiritual enemy of God. The death and suffering born of this kind of thinking is only an extreme example.

When people begin to praise their own weakness and mock their strengths, they accept an ethic of self-debasement that allows for the debasement of any and all.