Why The Christian's Laughter Is Full Of Pain

[Sunstone]

Sorry But what in Gods name are you even talking about? Weird? Kooky!

Glaswegian is making an argument that Christians are resentful of life (and anyone who has "too much" life in them) based on what was once cutting edge psychology in 1840.

The kind of argument presented in the OP is what logicians call "an appeal to empathy", which basically means that it has no evidence for it other than whether the reader can empathize with it. That is, for evidence, the argument essential relies on your agreeing the argument is sound based on your own experience and knowledge.

The argument, as presented in the OP, commits the fallacy of sweeping generalization, which has been pointed out by many people in this thread. It does not seem to bother Glaswegian that he's made an irrational argument, though.

Last, the rhetoric in which the argument is couched is at times beautiful.

Does any of this help?

 

[lilithu]

I do not want to cause Christians pain by making them laugh.

Well it's a good thing I'm not Christian because you just put me in stitches.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You are aware that the human mind can only have knowledge of the physical world

Would you consider things of the mind such as thoughts and ideas as being physically existent?

Therefore, it shouldn't surprise you, Ozzie, that the religious person is devoid of any reason for his belief that there is a 'God', or that the universe is 'divine', or that there are 'angels' and 'demons', or that he has a 'soul', or that he will meet up again with his dear departed ones in 'the life to come', etc..

Of course there is reason for the religious person to believe in God(s), Souls, and all that other stuff.

All reason and rationality needs is a conclusion that is logically formed from a basis.

A religious person who, let's say, believes in God, can say that she grew up being told about God. This person knows that the world is complex, and the science she is taught makes it even more so. She also has been shown philosophical arguments for God - let's say, the ontological argument and the watchmaker argument - as well as arguments against God, such as the problem of evil and the creating-a-boulder-then-moving-it paradox. In the end, she could decide that it makes more sense to her that God exists since the complexity of the universe suggests a designer was involved in its creation.

Other people reach different conclusions. Some may say that the empirical evidence for evolution shows that complexity can be reached without the need for a designer. But the religious person in question has reasoned out a different conclusion. Her conclusion is rational. Yes, it is biased by her religious upbringing, but all human reasoning is biased by something.

Another example is the belief in the soul. A religious person contemplating the self could state that since he has maintained a sense of self throughout his lifetime, despite his knowledge that his body is in no way the same body he had when he first developed his sense of self, the self must in some way be seperate from his body, thus making it a "soul."

Again, other conclusions can be made from the sense of self. But the person in question reasoned out his belief in the soul.

Perhaps there are some religious beliefs that are irrational. But, generalizing all religious belief as irrational is an inductive fallacy.

 

[lilithu]

Sure. Is it Matthew or some other gospel that has the Jews exclaiming, "Let his death [i.e. Jesus's cruxification] be on our heads and the heads of our children"? I can't recall offhand the verse, but the verse is there somewhere. And the verse has been interpreted for centuries as giving licence to anti-semitism.

Matthew 27:25. "All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

And yes, it has been used to justify anti-semitism.

Strangely enough the book of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, to try to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. That's why it starts off with a genealogy of Jesus, in an attempt to prove that he was descended from David, and thus the fulfillment of prophecy. (It's the only one out of the four cannonical gospels to do so.) I don't think that the author of Matthew would have intended that line to be used to justify murdering the very people he was trying to convert.

According to the text, the blame lies with the people who responded to Pilate (and unfortunately to their children). How many do you think that would have been? A few hundred maybe? Maybe even a couple of thousand, at most?

It does not extend to ALL the Jewish people. Anyone who would read it that way was already inclined to do so.

 

[Ozzie]

But, generalizing all religious belief as irrational is an inductive fallacy.

And the inductive fallacy is that there is a causal connection. This is the theory Glaswegian holds, and that needs a proposed methodology in order to be tested, possibly falsified and so qualified as scientific, reasonable etc. I await the quantum leap with baited breath.:rainbow1:

 

[James the Persian]

According to the text, the blame lies with the people who responded to Pilate (and unfortunately to their children). How many do you think that would have been? A few hundred maybe? Maybe even a couple of thousand, at most?

It does not extend to ALL the Jewish people. Anyone who would read it that way was already inclined to do so.

Actually not even that. The crowd called for His blood to be upon them (which is clearly a way of saying that they were so convinced He wasn't the Son of God that they were willing to be cursed for killing Him if He was - roughly the equivalent, though bloodier and less wise, of saying 'I'll eat my hat') but it clearly wasn't on them, because Christ forgave them nonetheless (though this is not in the same Gospel). Any Christian, then, who wishes to use that verse as a pretext for anti-Semitism has to fly in the face of Christ's forgiveness of His killers. And if Christ is God and Christ forgave, then there really is no blame for man to lay on the Jews. In other words, whilst I don't doubt that there have been anti-Semites who did use the verse as an excuse for their racism,it most certainly does not justify it and in no way can anti-Semitism be attributed to Christianity, rather it can be attributed to people who were willing to twist the faith to their own agenda.

James

 

[Glaswegian]

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...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.

We can gain some idea of the extent to which the Christian ceases to think of himself as his own person as a consequence of embracing his religion if we look at his attitude towards suicide. The Christian is so divorced from his inner being that he regards his very life not as his own but as 'the gift of God'. For the Christian, because life itself is the gift of God 'to reject life is to reject God and to frustrate His will'. Furthermore, because the Christian deludes himself that he is created in the image of God he believes that to kill God's image via the act of suicide is 'in a sense' to kill Him - and this would mean incurring eternal damnation for his 'soul'. Accordingly, the Christian thinks that suicide is one of the gravest of 'sins' and this accounts for why he clings to life when it is no longer worth having - indeed, why he will even cling to it at the cost of appearing completely abject and contemptible in the eyes of those of a more noble disposition.

We can see just how craven the Christian's attitude to suicide is by contrasting it with the one exemplified by the ancient Roman.

For the Roman, there were certain conditions under which life was not worth living and when they arose the proper course of action was to put an end to oneself, and to do this with as much bravery and dignity as possible. Instead of shrinking from suicide out of superstitious fear (as the Christian does) the Roman was taught to approach it with equanimity. Thus, for the Roman death was to be treated almost as a duty - we die not because we are old or ill but because we are alive - and like any other duty it ought to be executed with poise and without complaint. The Roman Stoic philosopher, Seneca, gave the following advice to a younger acquaintance to quell any misgivings he had about suicide:

'There is nothing so very great about living - all your slaves and all the animals do it. What is, however, a great thing is to die in a manner which is honourable, enlightened and courageous.'

In Seneca's view, by choosing to die well and at the right moment an individual vindicated his or her life no matter how long or short its span had been. Death should not be viewed as an invincible foe but rather as our greatest ally for when existence becomes intolerable death is always ready at hand to deliver us from our wretchedness. As Seneca wrote:

'Wherever you look there is an end of evils. You see that yawning precipice? It leads to liberty. You see that flood, that river, that well? Liberty houses within them. You see that stunted, parched, and sorry tree? From each branch liberty hangs. Your neck, your throat, your heart are all so many ways of escape from slavery. Do you enquire the road to freedom? You shall find it in every vein of your body.'

 

[James the Persian]

I see that Glaswegian is no longer answering questions but rather engaging in soliloquy. Can we therefore assume that he has no answers for the multitude of posts which opposed his bigotted and infantile misrepresentations of Christianity and close this thread? I, for one, am not inclined to offer up soap boxes on which every assorted prejudice can be preached and nor do I see this as being the purpose of a religious debate forum. If Glaswegian were debating himself, that would be different (and possibly indicative of a dissociative disorder, or at least a greater skill in the art of debate than he has hitherto shown) but as he is just agreeing with himself it just strikes me as an exercise in futility.

James

 

[Ozzie]

We can gain some idea of the extent to which the Christian ceases to think of himself as his own person as a consequence of embracing his religion if we look at his attitude towards suicide. The Christian is so divorced from his inner being that he regards his very life not as his own but as 'the gift of God'. For the Christian, because life itself is the gift of God 'to reject life is to reject God and to frustrate His will'. Furthermore, because the Christian deludes himself that he is created in the image of God he believes that to kill God's image via the act of suicide is 'in a sense' to kill Him - and this would mean incurring eternal damnation for his 'soul'. Accordingly, the Christian thinks that suicide is one of the gravest of 'sins' and this accounts for why he clings to life when it is no longer worth having - indeed, why he will even cling to it at the cost of appearing completely abject and contemptible in the eyes of those of a more noble disposition.

We can see just how craven the Christian's attitude to suicide is by contrasting it with the one exemplified by the ancient Roman.

For the Roman, there were certain conditions under which life was not worth living and when they arose the proper course of action was to put an end to oneself, and to do this with as much bravery and dignity as possible. Instead of shrinking from suicide out of superstitious fear (as the Christian does) the Roman was taught to approach it with equanimity. Thus, for the Roman death was to be treated almost as a duty - we die not because we are old or ill but because we are alive - and like any other duty it ought to be executed with poise and without complaint. The Roman Stoic philosopher, Seneca, gave the following advice to a younger acquaintance to quell any misgivings he had about suicide:

'There is nothing so very great about living - all your slaves and all the animals do it. What is, however, a great thing is to die in a manner which is honourable, enlightened and courageous.'

In Seneca's view, by choosing to die well and at the right moment an individual vindicated his or her life no matter how long or short its span had been. Death should not be viewed as an invincible foe but rather as our greatest ally for when existence becomes intolerable death is always ready at hand to deliver us from our wretchedness. As Seneca wrote:

'Wherever you look there is an end of evils. You see that yawning precipice? It leads to liberty. You see that flood, that river, that well? Liberty houses within them. You see that stunted, parched, and sorry tree? From each branch liberty hangs. Your neck, your throat, your heart are all so many ways of escape from slavery. Do you enquire the road to freedom? You shall find it in every vein of your body.'

Mate, suicide is a gutless selfish act, no matter how you justify it.

 

[Sunstone]

I see that Glaswegian is no longer answering questions but rather engaging in soliloquy. Can we therefore assume that he has no answers for the multitude of posts which opposed his bigotted and infantile misrepresentations of Christianity and close this thread? I, for one, am not inclined to offer up soap boxes on which every assorted prejudice can be preached and nor do I see this as being the purpose of a religious debate forum. If Glaswegian were debating himself, that would be different (and possibly indicative of a dissociative disorder, or at least a greater skill in the art of debate than he has hitherto shown) but as he is just agreeing with himself it just strikes me as an exercise in futility.

James

Glaswegian's last post was another sweeping generalization about all Christians having a certain mindset. If we cannot come to an understanding here that smearing all Christians with the same brush is against the rules and spirit of this Forum, then we will indeed be forced to close this thread. But before doing that, I would like to ask the members if any of them find merit in keeping this thread open?

 

[Ozzie]

Glaswegian's last post was another sweeping generalization about all Christians having a certain mindset. If we cannot come to an understanding here that smearing all Christians with the same brush is against the rules and spirit of this Forum, then we will indeed be forced to close this thread. But before doing that, I would like to ask the members if any of them find merit in keeping this thread open?

It needs to be kept open.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Glaswegian's last post was another sweeping generalization about all Christians having a certain mindset. If we cannot come to an understanding here that smearing all Christians with the same brush is against the rules and spirit of this Forum, then we will indeed be forced to close this thread. But before doing that, I would like to ask the members if any of them find merit in keeping this thread open?

I personally think there is an opportunity for good discussion in this thread, but it has yet to be achieved. There is a lot of rhetoric about how Christianity is a religion that praises life and promotes it, but historically this has not been the case. While the OP isn't so much an argument, as it is an impression, it is an impression based on a long-standing historical perspective, predicated upon generations of doctrine that demote and deny life and the world, choosing instead to focus on an entirely spiritual approach to life. However, as the spiritual world can be as broad or narrow as the individual’s imagination, people have and still do become detached and opposed to material reality as an act of religious submission. The pain and guilt associated with the sort of psychology typically associated with a rejection of the world can be recognized in the pseudo-happiness of those who praise themselves (egoism) for their rejection of this world (Maya). Touching upon whether such rejections of the world are psychologically healthy or even religiously defendable would seem productive. However, if this thread is only going to be used as a means for attacking or defending all Christianity, as if Christianity could be easily categorized/generalized, then there is no point keeping it open, as it will generate nothing useful in the way of debate of the actual impressions, doctrines, and history involved in the Topic.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It needs to be kept open.

That Glaswegian is no longer debating, but is preaching is a problem. But I think if the other members continue to debate on this thread, there is reason to keep it open.

 

[James the Persian]

However, if this thread is only going to be used as a means for attacking or defending all Christianity, as if Christianity could be easily categorized/generalized, then there is no point keeping it open, as it will generate nothing useful in the way of debate of the actual impressions, doctrines, and history involved in the Topic.

And this is the point. Glaswegian has proven himself utterly unwilling to engage in any kind of argument that doesn't engage in the broadest of generalisations. Now he appears to be unwilling to engage anyone but himself, so what can possibly be achieved? To describe this thread, as it stands, as a debate is farcical. It's nothing more than a forum for Glaswegian's preaching. I say that if he's unwilling to debate then his posts are nothing more than trolling and the thread should be closed. If he is willing to engage with the contrary posts of others then by all means leave it open and I will contribute. But please, no more soliloquies.

James

 

[Ozzie]

I personally think there is an opportunity for good discussion in this thread, but it has yet to be achieved. There is a lot of rhetoric about how Christianity is a religion that praises life and promotes it, but historically this has not been the case. While the OP isn't so much an argument, as it is an impression, it is an impression based on a long-standing historical perspective, predicated upon generations of doctrine that demote and deny life and the world, choosing instead to focus on an entirely spiritual approach to life. However, as the spiritual world can be as broad or narrow as the individual’s imagination, people have and still do become detached and opposed to material reality as an act of religious submission. The pain and guilt associated with the sort of psychology typically associated with a rejection of the world can be recognized in the pseudo-happiness of those who praise themselves (egoism) for their rejection of this world (Maya). Touching upon whether such rejections of the world are psychologically healthy or even religiously defendable would seem productive. However, if this thread is only going to be used as a means for attacking or defending all Christianity, as if Christianity could be easily categorized/generalized, then there is no point keeping it open, as it will generate nothing useful in the way of debate of the actual impressions, doctrines, and history involved in the Topic.

There is a lot of rhetoric that is personal. The historical crap does not matter.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

There is a lot of rhetoric that is personal. The historical crap does not matter.

The historical crap matters a great deal to me, as the same thoughts and ideas that existed in the past still exist today, but are more subdued and subconscious I think. However, I have said all I really have to say about toxic faith in other threads and I'm not sure what more I could add here that would be new.

 

[lilithu]

Glaswegian's last post was another sweeping generalization about all Christians having a certain mindset. If we cannot come to an understanding here that smearing all Christians with the same brush is against the rules and spirit of this Forum, then we will indeed be forced to close this thread. But before doing that, I would like to ask the members if any of them find merit in keeping this thread open?

His sweeping generalizations and lack of responsiveness makes me angry and therefore makes me want the thread closed. BUT I believe that would be the wrong response.

I don't remember the rules but I thought that threads were only closed when they degenerated into personal name-calling and such. Given that for the most part this is not the case here, closing the thread might be seen as the moderators censoring criticism against Christianity. Censoring him would only serve to validate him.

What the dude wants is an audience for his rants. Given, the lack of true dialogue, I feel the best course of action is to IGNORE THE THREAD. Do not respond to it. Do not continue to "feed" it, as it were. Let it die. Do not give him the audience that he wants. That is what I am going to do anyway, as of this post. And I encourage Christians and others who are offended by this kind of sweeping bias to do the same.

 

[athanasius]

Glaswegian is making an argument that Christians are resentful of life (and anyone who has "too much" life in them) based on what was once cutting edge psychology in 1840.

The kind of argument presented in the OP is what logicians call "an appeal to empathy", which basically means that it has no evidence for it other than whether the reader can empathize with it. That is, for evidence, the argument essential relies on your agreeing the argument is sound based on your own experience and knowledge.

The argument, as presented in the OP, commits the fallacy of sweeping generalization, which has been pointed out by many people in this thread. It does not seem to bother Glaswegian that he's made an irrational argument, though.

Last, the rhetoric in which the argument is couched is at times beautiful.

Does any of this help?

Ahh thank you for your explanation. This thread deals with empiricism.

 

[PureX]

When this thread began I was sort of hoping that there would be some discussion about the historical prevalence of theological disdain for natural or "Earthly" existence among many Christians. I had noticed this over the years, and had always been curious about it, but found it very difficult to get any real answers from the Christians that I perceived as exhibiting it. And to make it even more difficult to investigate, it seems that the mere mention of it tends to bring on intense defensiveness among those Christians who do not even exhibit such a disdain for natural life.

But so far, even after 14 pages, this thread doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere with this aspect of the OP's contention. I think that's mostly because the OP was so poorly presented, and distractedly biased. Too bad. I was hoping to learn something.

Does anyone out there who considers themselves a Christian, and who does tend to feel this disdain for their natural or "Earthly" existence have any insight they would like to share about this? Or should I perhaps try to bring it up on a new thread?

 

[lunamoth]

Does anyone out there who considers themselves a Christian, and who does tend to feel this disdain for their natural or "Earthly" existence have any insight they would like to share about this? Or should I perhaps try to bring it up on a new thread?

Hi Purex, I think the reason no one addresses it from that angle is because disdain for creation is not part of the Christian theology. God created it and it was good. When Christians speak of rising above nature, it refers to rising above our own animal inclinations, where those inclinations make us focus on self rather than loving our neighbor. Sure, just like any cross-section of humanity, there are Christians who are hurt or otherwise disordered, ill, out of balance and they will focus on the 'sin' and depravity. Heck, Augustine was brilliant but I think he was a rather tormented man, and it shows in his theology. So, we inherit those fallible human ideas as well.

The idea that Christians believe in resurrection (added in edit: thanks for pointing my mistake out here James!), rather than a spiritual release from some kind of fleshy prison, and the belief that God incarnated into a flesh and blood body, also illustrate that the Christian view is that this material world and our lives in it are good, even if they are hurt or broken.