PDA

View Full Version : God is Dead! (Done like Dinner) LOL



is4fun
30-05-2009, 01:15
Nietzsche. What did he mean?; He never existed? He existed but people began to disbelieve or people began to be disillusioned?

This Nietzsche guy..., what a thinker eh..? :)))

Get on iy EXP!

Qdos
30-05-2009, 01:19
Nevermind, Mohommad will probably bury him... :10220:

OlgaT
30-05-2009, 01:34
Nietzsche. What did he mean?; He never existed? He existed but people began to disbelieve or people began to be disillusioned?

This Nietzsche guy..., what a thinker eh..? :)))

Get on iy EXP!
If he is dead he must have existed ;). But he died. Why are you looking for implications? He's dead - it's so easy...
:bong:

is4fun
30-05-2009, 01:42
If he is dead he must have existed ;). But he died. Why are you looking for implications? He's dead - it's so easy...
:bong:

Excellent wit! I am looking forward to reading more of your contributions! :) Even though the question runs a little deeper...

Qdos
30-05-2009, 01:45
I think I'll log off and come back in as Jean Paul Sarthe... :clown:

is4fun
30-05-2009, 01:46
Nevermind, Mohommad will probably bury him... :10220:

The Muslims believe in the same God... as do the Jews.

OlgaT
30-05-2009, 01:50
Excellent wit! I am looking forward to reading more of your contributions! :)
You really think so?..:shame:
I just know Nietzsche... he always said what he thought. And that's why he ended up in a mental hospital... :7525:

Qdos
30-05-2009, 01:54
And that's why he ended up in a mental hospital... :7525:

Happens to only the best people... there's actually a fine line between genius and insanity, just pray for a sexy nympho nurse is all any of us could do... :cheerleader:

is4fun
30-05-2009, 02:10
You really think so?..:shame:
I just know Nietzsche... he always said what he thought. And that's why he ended up in a mental hospital... :7525:

Ending up in a mental hospital, especially at that time has no bearing on any argument whatsoever as it was primarily used to silence or do away people. A rather convenient manipulation of the law for which the general population can accept as a truth without any remorse. " Oh yea, the guy is fuc*in nuts! We better get him to a hospital and into a Straight jacket before he hurts someone!" LOL

And yes witty you are. :)

OlgaT
30-05-2009, 02:23
I think I'll log off and come back in as Jean Paul Sarthe... :clown:
Good idea. You know which book you will tell my at nights...

Ending up in a mental hospital, especially at that time has no bearing on any argument whatsoever as it was primarily used to silence or do away people. A rather convenient manipulation of the law for which the general population can accept as a truth without any remorse. " Oh yea, the guy is fuc*in nuts! We better get him to a hospital and into a Straight jacket before he hurts someone!" LOL

You think he was dangerous for government? Or society? I don't think so... He only announced God's death, but not that they had no more beer...

ultimotattie
30-05-2009, 03:10
Who?!

DDT
30-05-2009, 08:29
The Muslims believe in the same God... as do the Jews.
No they don't! Far from it.

Allah is the name pagan Arabs the time of Mohamed used for one of their many gods, this one, Allah, living in the Moon!.......with 2 female deities.

Matt24
30-05-2009, 10:55
No they don't! Far from it.

Allah is the name pagan Arabs the time of Mohamed used for one of their many gods, this one, Allah, living in the Moon!.......with 2 female deities.

Allah is an Arabic noun, which translates as 'God', not a name . Don't you got Wikipedia?

Qdos
30-05-2009, 11:15
Why oh why do people believe everything they read in Wiki? :rolleyes:

The content is made up by just anyone, often there are glaring errors and ambiguities, over time members correct eachother according to what they individually believe... it is not a factual encyclopedia as is a published book, it frequently carries gross inaccuracies... ;)


Good idea. You know which book you will tell my at nights...

Did I just pull then? :cool:

DDT
30-05-2009, 11:55
Why oh why do people believe everything they read in Wiki? :rolleyes:

The content is made up by just anyone, often there are glaring errors and ambiguities, over time members correct eachother according to what they individually believe... it is not a factual encyclopedia as is a published book, it frequently carries gross inaccuracies... ;)

Exactly! Even I have edited Wikipedia.......scary ain't it?

DDT
30-05-2009, 12:07
Allah is an Arabic noun, which translates as 'God', not a name . Don't you got Wikipedia?Hmmm......I guess the last guy to edit Wiki was a red hot Muslim...hey?

Basically, if Christians reject Allah as being the same as their God (who already has a name btw "Yahweh") how can anyone argue with it? I mean it's their religion, isn't it? Mohamed (a camel train looter) comes along roughly 2,000 years after Abraham and wants to join the club??????????? :bash:
CONCLUSION

The pagan Arabs worshiped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc. (Sound familiar? Hmmm?)

The Muslim's claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. As such, it is sheer idolatry and must be rejected by all those who follow the Torah and Gospel.

ALLAH, the Moon God (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

EDIT: Oh, I almost forgot. Nietzsche was a retard wasn't he? Yeah, I was gonna study up on that one and read every single thing he wrote .....but I decided to watch South Park instead.

Korotky Gennady
30-05-2009, 12:50
No they don't! Far from it.

Allah is the name pagan Arabs the time of Mohamed used for one of their many gods, this one, Allah, living in the Moon!.......with 2 female deities.Let it be so... but please tell me why are you sure that Allah is worse than Jesus ? :wavey:


Don't forget that Jesus is an jew ! How do you like it to have god who is an jew and an jewish male ?


It would be much better if our russian christian god was an arabian beauty.

Qdos
30-05-2009, 12:58
An arab walks into an airport bar, wearing a kaftan type robe, sandals, full headress gear... he has a big brown paper parcel wrapped with string under his arm, a mobile phone is his hand and his fingers are toying with the keys and he is looking disorientated... and as he approaches the crowded counter starts to repeatedly say... 'Allah, Allah, Allah...'

Nothing quite like it for clearing the place out, tables and chairs go flying, some people throw furniture through the windows to get out faster as the exodus has blocked the doorway... all of them crapping themselves that the arab is a suicide bomber...

The arab looks alarmed, puts down his parcel on the bar, and finishes what he was saying... 'Allah, Allah, Allah... just have an orange juice please...' :cool:

OlgaT
30-05-2009, 13:44
No they don't! Far from it.

Allah is the name pagan Arabs the time of Mohamed used for one of their many gods, this one, Allah, living in the Moon!.......with 2 female deities.


Allah is an Arabic noun, which translates as 'God', not a name . Don't you got Wikipedia?
Please don't argue, guys. We all believe in the same God until we start to define its name. ;)

Korotky Gennady
30-05-2009, 13:47
Please don't argue, guys. We all believe in the same God until we start to define its name. ;)It would be better if we are to define Her (or his) sex.

DDT
30-05-2009, 22:19
Please don't argue, guys. We all believe in the same God until we start to define its name. ;)

Sorry babe, ....didn't know it worked like that .............it's easy..... from now on, how about I call myself Zeus?

OlgaT
30-05-2009, 23:38
Sorry babe, ....didn't know it worked like that .............it's easy..... from now on, how about I call myself Zeus?
Ok, I don't mind ;).
But Dionysus - that's whom I like best. He is definitely my God :10518:

ahmettombak
01-06-2009, 14:29
I think I'll stick with the all-father Odin. Isn't that where the russian number odin(one) comes from ?
And his son Thor gave his name to Thursday (Thor'sday)
P.s. Eventhough I believe in no religion or no god I used to live in an Islamic country and found the chance to read Quran. Islam has no relationship with the moon god. I've read Quran and the bible both. Have some knowledge before having an opinion. This way you can prevent others from laughing at you ;)

Qdos
01-06-2009, 14:41
I think I'll stick with the all-father Odin. Isn't that where the russian number odin(one) comes from ? And his son Thor gave his name to Thursday (Thor'sday)

What are you going to do on the other five days of the week then? :rasta:

ahmettombak
01-06-2009, 14:49
What are you going to do on the other five days of the week then? :rasta:

Do not worry :) Everywhere is full of gods. I can find some to stick with. After all many very intelligent men in the past have made up many religions and gods from their minds to keep people in order. After all I query the conscious of people who do good just because they are afraid of some higher being who doesn't exist and not because they would like to. People are dying to be controlled. They are crying "Control us or we cannot control ourselves we are weak!!!"

Kangaroo495
01-06-2009, 15:10
I think I'll stick with the all-father Odin. Isn't that where the russian number odin(one) comes from ?
And his son Thor gave his name to Thursday (Thor'sday)


Didn't Odin give his name to Wednesday also? Wodin's-day? I think there are some other Norse names in the days of the week too... Plus the Roman god Saturn - Saturn's-day...

Always wondered about the Russian number One. Would seem logical that it was related to Odin, given that the vikings founded the Russian state...

MickeyTong
01-06-2009, 15:25
Moon-day, Mona-day
Tuesday, named after Tyr, the son of Odin.
Friday, named after Freja.
Sun-day.

There are 7 days in the week because the Babylonians only knew 5 planets plus the sun and moon.

ahmettombak
01-06-2009, 15:26
Didn't Odin give his name to Wednesday also? Wodin's-day? I think there are some other Norse names in the days of the week too... Plus the Roman god Saturn - Saturn's-day...

Always wondered about the Russian number One. Would seem logical that it was related to Odin, given that the vikings founded the Russian state...

Yep Russia was founded by the East Slav Vikings and the State's name was Kievan Rus. That is where number Odin comes from.

Russian Lad
07-06-2009, 17:01
We all believe in the same God

Who is WE? For f'ck sake...

jeyla
07-06-2009, 17:35
Nietzsche. What did he mean?; He never existed? He existed but people began to disbelieve or people began to be disillusioned?

This Nietzsche guy..., what a thinker eh..? :)))

Get on iy EXP!
i cant believe i missed this, im a huge fan of nietzsche... :-(

this is from "thus spoke zarathustra" and the line is "god is dead and you killed him" meaning us, the people

the end of the line is usually overlooked, but thats where the meaning lies: we have destroyed the idea of god in favor of our obsession with procedural worship (just look back at the squabbles over name and gender)

thats what he holds against christianity (killing god) which he sees as a slave morality, a morality of weakness and guilt

he's very often misunderstood (by hitler for one) and its easy to use his slogans to rally the masses... once you really dig into what he has to say, it makes a lot of sense, nothing atheist or fascist about it...

OlgaT
07-06-2009, 19:33
Who is WE? For f'ck sake...
you and others...

OlgaT
07-06-2009, 19:57
i cant believe i missed this, im a huge fan of nietzsche... :-(

this is from "thus spoke zarathustra" and the line is "god is dead and you killed him" meaning us, the people

the end of the line is usually overlooked, but thats where the meaning lies: we have destroyed the idea of god in favor of our obsession with procedural worship (just look back at the squabbles over name and gender)

thats what he holds against christianity (killing god) which he sees as a slave morality, a morality of weakness and guilt

he's very often misunderstood (by hitler for one) and its easy to use his slogans to rally the masses... once you really dig into what he has to say, it makes a lot of sense, nothing atheist or fascist about it...
To be more precise, the statement first appeared in The Gay Science.

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"— As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. [...] Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? [...] Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!"
F.Nietzsche, The Gay Science, part III, 125, The madman

Qdos
07-06-2009, 20:01
"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"— As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. [...] Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? [...] Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!"

No wonder he was put in an asylum... :duhhhh:

OlgaT
07-06-2009, 20:12
No wonder he was put in an asylum... :duhhhh:
Yes, we killed God and then put him in an asylum... :groan:

Qdos
07-06-2009, 20:17
Yes, we killed God and then put him in an asylum... :groan:

Prove it... :devil:

Oh... and who is 'we'... :mooooh:

Jack17
07-06-2009, 21:48
No wonder he was put in an asylum... :duhhhh:

Sadly, there was no cure for syphillis at the turn of the twentieth century.

is4fun
07-06-2009, 23:27
i cant believe i missed this, im a huge fan of nietzsche... :-(

this is from "thus spoke zarathustra" and the line is "god is dead and you killed him" meaning us, the people

the end of the line is usually overlooked, but thats where the meaning lies: we have destroyed the idea of god in favor of our obsession with procedural worship (just look back at the squabbles over name and gender)

thats what he holds against christianity (killing god) which he sees as a slave morality, a morality of weakness and guilt

he's very often misunderstood (by hitler for one) and its easy to use his slogans to rally the masses... once you really dig into what he has to say, it makes a lot of sense, nothing atheist or fascist about it...

Very good jelya. :) Nice post.

Qdos
07-06-2009, 23:43
Sadly, there was no cure for syphillis at the turn of the twentieth century.

What has syphillis got to do with a man who died from a brain haemmorhage and whose psychological illness was hereditary (his father having suffered in the same manner and fashion before him...) when his medical history says he suffered two strokes in 1898 and 1899, contracted pneumonia in summer of 1900, and died from a further stroke on August 25th 1900.

There is no evidence of syphillis and his medical records appear to have been preserved in an exemplary fashion since he spent the final eighteen months of his life under the permanent care of close family and his physicians.

I don't see any link posted to an official record of him suffering from syphillis :rolleyes:

Russian Lad
07-06-2009, 23:46
Who is WE? For f'ck sake...

you and others...

I, for example, Olga, believe neither in God nor in Santa, so it is better to say not "we" but "some people".

DDT
07-06-2009, 23:52
I think I'll stick with the all-father Odin. Isn't that where the russian number odin(one) comes from ?
And his son Thor gave his name to Thursday (Thor'sday)
P.s. Eventhough I believe in no religion or no god I used to live in an Islamic country and found the chance to read Quran. Islam has no relationship with the moon god. I've read Quran and the bible both. Have some knowledge before having an opinion. This way you can prevent others from laughing at you ;)You sound very conflicted! So, tell me, how does the fact that you "read" the Bible and Koran prove that Mohamed did not use the name of the pagan Arab Moon god, whose name was by chance, "Allah" as his template for his new religion that he single handed invented and "wrote" ?? Hmmm...? Archeology, as I have posted, has well proven the existence of Allah as a Mood god.

DDT
07-06-2009, 23:58
Moon-day, Mona-day
Tuesday, named after Tyr, the son of Odin.
Friday, named after Freja.
Sun-day.

There are 7 days in the week because the Babylonians only knew 5 planets plus the sun and moon.

You forgot Субота the Russian word for the last day of the week from the Hebrew God's........ "Sabbath"

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 11:07
I, for example, Olga, believe neither in God nor in Santa, so it is better to say not "we" but "some people".
I guessed that you meant you are an atheist, when you asked me to clarify the definition of "we". But don't you believe in anything? At least do you believe in your existence, in existence of others and the world? God is not necessary Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Allah... We all have something to believe in. That's why I said we all believe in the same God until we start to define its name, i.e. to identify what God is for us. ;)

jeyla
08-06-2009, 12:05
What has syphillis got to do with a man who died from a brain haemmorhage and whose psychological illness was hereditary (his father having suffered in the same manner and fashion before him...) when his medical history says he suffered two strokes in 1898 and 1899, contracted pneumonia in summer of 1900, and died from a further stroke on August 25th 1900.

There is no evidence of syphillis and his medical records appear to have been preserved in an exemplary fashion since he spent the final eighteen months of his life under the permanent care of close family and his physicians.

I don't see any link posted to an official record of him suffering from syphillis :rolleyes:
thats because he didnt, but he was sick for a lot of his life - hence the "what doesnt kill me makes me stronger" and the whole "overcoming" bit...

his father was a creep though, he used to show him pictures of men's privates in full syphillis swing so to speak, to make sure that the boy didnt get any ungodly urges!

ahmettombak
08-06-2009, 12:35
You sound very conflicted! So, tell me, how does the fact that you "read" the Bible and Koran prove that Mohamed did not use the name of the pagan Arab Moon god, whose name was by chance, "Allah" as his template for his new religion that he single handed invented and "wrote" ?? Hmmm...? Archeology, as I have posted, has well proven the existence of Allah as a Mood god.

Show some archeological proof and then we will talk again. I stand firm that Allah has nothing to do with moon God. And i didn't say he single handedly invented. Kuran was written by the very same people who wrote bible and torah and tanakh to put weak minded people in order. Fear of a higher being needed to be used to control people.

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 13:17
thats because he didnt, but he was sick for a lot of his life - hence the "what doesnt kill me makes me stronger" and the whole "overcoming" bit...

his father was a creep though, he used to show him pictures of men's privates in full syphillis swing so to speak, to make sure that the boy didnt get any ungodly urges!
Are we going to discuss the unbelievable long-term syphilis effect on his mental health or the "God is Dead" claim? If the latter, then to be impartial, we have to admit that after "the Great Enlightenment" he changed his mind and agreed that God is alive.

From his letters:

"Turin, January 3, 1889: Letter to Meta von Salis-Marschlins

God is on the earth. Don't you see how all the heavens are rejoicing? I have just seized possession of my kingdom, I've thrown the Pope in prison, and I’m having Wilhelm, Bismarck, and [anti-Semitic politician Adolf] Stoecker shot.

The Crucified."

:10293:

Qdos
08-06-2009, 13:32
From his letters:



God is on the earth. Don't you see how all the heavens are rejoicing? I have just seized possession of my kingdom, I've thrown the Pope in prison, and I’m having Wilhelm, Bismarck, and [anti-Semitic politician Adolf] Stoecker shot... The Crucified."


:10293:

Perhaps 'God' is therefore a state of mind, not an entity... postulate that as conceptual instead of the traditional thinking... :cool:

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 13:44
Perhaps 'God' is therefore a state of mind, not an entity... postulate that as conceptual instead of the traditional thinking... :cool:
Or perhaps we just didn't recognize God in Nietzsche, called him mad instead and put into a hospital... ;)
Very sad story, bad it usually happens to everybody who protests against strictly ordered and, as a result, limited human mind. :eh:

Qdos
08-06-2009, 13:54
Or perhaps we just didn't recognize God in Nietzsche, called him mad instead and put into a hospital... ;)
Very sad story, bad it usually happens to everybody who protests against strictly ordered and, as a result, limited human mind. :eh:

C'mon, it's far more deeply rooted than that, as a race were supposed to have crucified the son of God... doesn't that claim take precedence over every other religious event since then?

Scholars have spent, and more will, their lifetimes pondering the existance of God and none have tangible evidence or universally acceptable hypothesise - don't you think we may be 'as ants to a desert...' and simply incapable, by design, of learning the order of matters in the universe as we are simply not supposed to know... :cool:

Anyway, haven't you got any 'consignments à faire' aujourd'hui? :11157:

IGIT
08-06-2009, 14:03
God is ALIVE.

ahmettombak
08-06-2009, 14:26
God is ALIVE.

Long Live The God then!!
God bless the God!! :hooray:

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 14:43
C'mon, it's far more deeply rooted than that, as a race were supposed to have crucified the son of God... doesn't that claim take precedence over every other religious event since then?

Scholars have spent, and more will, their lifetimes pondering the existance of God and none have tangible evidence or universally acceptable hypothesise - don't you think we may be 'as ants to a desert...' and simply incapable, by design, of learning the order of matters in the universe as we are simply not supposed to know... :cool:
Ok, I see you also don't believe in [-]Nietzsche[/-] God... :duhhhh:

Anyway, haven't you got any 'consignments à faire' aujourd'hui? :11157:
Yes, one consignment from Kazakhstan... :whisper:
(But it's a secret :shhhhhh: and not exactly for this thread I'm afraid...)
:rasta:

Qdos
08-06-2009, 14:46
Ok, I see you also don't believe in [-]Nietzsche[/-] God... :duhhhh:

Err, nope... I never said that... I simply don't believe in religion however, there's a big difference... I get a piece of the afterlife with none of the hassle of kneeling and worshipping at some shrine or rather... :rofl:


Yes, one consignment from Kazakhstan... :whisper:
(But it's a secret :shhhhhh: and not exactly for this thread I'm afraid...)
:rasta:

More DDT for the nation... :cool:

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 14:53
Err, nope... I never said that... I simply don't believe in religion however, there's a big difference... I get a piece of the afterlife with none of the hassle of kneeling and worshipping at some shrine or rather... :rofl:
Oh really? Can you give me a piece of that piece?

More DDT for the nation... :cool:
It's not what you think... :nono:

Qdos
08-06-2009, 14:58
Oh really? Can you give me a piece of that piece?

We'll see... :D

Russian Lad
08-06-2009, 16:26
I guessed that you meant you are an atheist, when you asked me to clarify the definition of "we". But don't you believe in anything? At least do you believe in your existence, in existence of others and the world? God is not necessary Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Allah... We all have something to believe in. That's why I said we all believe in the same God until we start to define its name, i.e. to identify what God is for us.

I certainly cannot deny my existence, for obvious reasons, but I do not believe in Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Santa. So I can hardly find common grounds with a Christian, for example. I am just an atom in this huge Universe, I appeared here by chance after my father ejected his sperm into my mother in an animal act of copulation and I am bound to disappear in as hectic a fashion as I appeared, most likely in a violent or pitiful fashion, even - dying of cancer or in a car accident, etc. - like all of us. There will not be a happy end for a single person present here. Dust comes to dust, it says in their book. I agree.


Very sad story, bad it usually happens to everybody who protests against strictly ordered and, as a result, limited human mind.

Bad will happen to all of us. See the above.

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 17:28
I certainly cannot deny my existence, for obvious reasons, but I do not believe in Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Santa. So I can hardly find common grounds with a Christian, for example. I am just an atom in this huge Universe, I appeared here by chance after my father ejected his sperm into my mother in an animal act of copulation and I am bound to disappear in as hectic a fashion as I appeared, most likely in a violent or pitiful fashion, even - dying of cancer or in a car accident, etc. - like all of us. There will not be a happy end for a single person present here. Dust comes to dust, it says in their book. I agree.
I see, the huge Universe that manages your life and will swallow you at the end - this is your God. Not much differences from cruel Jehovah, I can say, just not so personalized and without miracles... Well, it's not the best religious choice, but it's your right.

Bad will happen to all of us. See the above.
Dust comes to dust - you really think it's not a happy end? It's a harmonic and fair life circle and if you don't like it, it means only that you can't accept this reality with all your heart. Maybe it's time to revise your religious convictions? ;)

Russian Lad
08-06-2009, 17:47
I see, the huge Universe that manages your life and will swallow you at the end - this is your God.

It is the objective reality, not a God or a religion. The Universe does not manage my life, it does not give two sh**s whether I exist or not.


Dust comes to dust - you really think it's not a happy end? It's a harmonic and fair life circle and if you don't like it, it means only that you can't accept this reality with all your heart. Maybe it's time to revise your religious convictions?

Whenever anyone thinks dying is a happy end he/she commits suicide to precipitate it. Otherwise it is cheating yourself and others. Or indulging in demagogy and doublespeak, which is basically the same.

is4fun
08-06-2009, 21:46
Or perhaps we just didn't recognize God in Nietzsche, called him mad instead and put into a hospital... ;)
Very sad story, bad it usually happens to everybody who protests against strictly ordered and, as a result, limited human mind. :eh:

Too funny and brilliant at the same time.

rusmeister
08-06-2009, 22:35
A wonderful comment on Nietzsche, for intelligent readers only:

From time to time in human history, but especially in restless
epochs like our own, a certain class of things appears.
In the old world they were called heresies. In the modern world
they are called fads. Sometimes they are for a time useful;
sometimes they are wholly mischievous. But they always consist
of undue concentration upon some one truth or half-truth. Thus it
is true to insist upon God's knowledge, but heretical to insist on it
as Calvin did at the expense of his Love; thus it is true to desire
a simple life, but heretical to desire it at the expense of good
feeling and good manners. The heretic (who is also the fanatic)
is not a man who loves truth too much; no man can love truth too much.
The heretic is a man who loves his truth more than truth itself.
He prefers the half-truth that he has found to the whole truth
which humanity has found. He does not like to see his own precious
little paradox merely bound up with twenty truisms into the bundle
of the wisdom of the world.

Sometimes such innovators are of a sombre sincerity like Tolstoi,
sometimes of a sensitive and feminine eloquence like Nietzsche,
and sometimes of an admirable humour, pluck, and public spirit like
Mr. Bernard Shaw. In all cases they make a stir, and perhaps found
a school. But in all cases the same fundamental mistake is made.
It is always supposed that the man in question has discovered a new idea.
But, as a fact, what is new is not the idea, but only the isolation
of the idea. The idea itself can be found, in all probability,
scattered frequently enough through all the great books of a more
classic or impartial temper, from Homer and Virgil to Fielding
and Dickens. You can find all the new ideas in the old books;
only there you will find them balanced, kept in their place,
and sometimes contradicted and overcome by other and better ideas.
The great writers did not neglect a fad because they had not thought
of it, but because they had thought of it and of all the answers
to it as well.

In case this point is not clear, I will take two examples,
both in reference to notions fashionable among some of the more
fanciful and younger theorists. Nietzsche, as every one knows,
preached a doctrine which he and his followers regard apparently as
very revolutionary; he held that ordinary altruistic morality had been
the invention of a slave class to prevent the emergence of superior
types to fight and rule them. Now, modern people, whether they agree
with this or not, always talk of it as a new and unheard-of idea.
It is calmly and persistently supposed that the great writers of the past,
say Shakespeare for instance, did not hold this view, because they
had never imagined it; because it had never come into their heads.
Turn up the last act of Shakespeare's Richard III and you will
find not only all that Nietzsche had to say put into two lines,
but you will find it put in the very words of Nietzsche.
Richard Crookback says to his nobles:

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe.

As I have said, the fact is plain. Shakespeare had thought of Nietzsche
and the Master Morality; but he weighed it at its proper value
and put it in its proper place. Its proper place is the mouth of a
half-insane hunchback on the eve of defeat. This rage against the weak
is only possible in a man morbidly brave but fundamentally sick;
a man like Richard, a man like Nietzsche. This case alone ought
to destroy the absurd fancy that these modern philosophies are modern
in the sense that the great men of the past did not think of them.
They thought of them; only they did not think much of them.
It was not that Shakespeare did not see the Nietzsche idea;
he saw it, and he saw through it.

...

What we call the new ideas are generally broken fragments of the old ideas.
It was not that a particular notion did not enter Shakespeare's head;
it is that it found a good many other notions waiting to knock
the nonsense out of it.


"On Reading" from The Common Man (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Common_Man.txt)

I wonder who has the patience to read that much these days, the age of ADD and ADHD?

Qdos
08-06-2009, 22:42
I wonder who has the patience to read that much these days, the age of ADD and ADHD?

Not to mention bi-focals and middle aged vision issues which make me squint ;)

OlgaT
08-06-2009, 23:25
It is the objective reality, not a God or a religion. The Universe does not manage my life, it does not give two sh**s whether I exist or not.

Whenever anyone thinks dying is a happy end he/she commits suicide to precipitate it. Otherwise it is cheating yourself and others. Or indulging in demagogy and doublespeak, which is basically the same.
Objective reality?..
Ok, no more questions. You are right - no reasons for indulging in demagogy.

Qdos
08-06-2009, 23:32
RL... whoda-thunk-it... :11363::devil::D

Jack17
08-06-2009, 23:35
"On Reading" from The Common Man

"I wonder who has the patience to read that much these days, the age of ADD and ADHD?"

RM, I would say that G. K. Chesterson had an immature view of Nietzche probably stunted in his childhood.

It's clear to me from your G.K.C. quote that he was no Nietzche scholar; but then, neither am I; so we're on at least equal footing when I say that the last thing Nietzche would have wanted are "followers" or disciples. I believe it was the whole point, in much of his work, not to present specifically new ideas; but to conduct a "reevaluation of all values" not according to Christian, but pre-socratic philisophical norms. In that sense, I don't believe he thought he was expressing anything particular new, rather ideas and "values" that were actually quite old - older than Christianity. As for Shakespeare, Nietzche was a great admirer of the poet, "What is all Hamlet's melancholy compared with the melancholy of Brutus!-and perhaps Shakespeare knew this too, as we knew that, out of experience!" I think Nietzche would have been the first to acknowledge many, if not most, of his insights were expressed earlier by Shakespeare.

Your dismissive quote on Nietzche highlights a key reason I've never been able to subscribe to a specific dogma; doing so, requires you to dismiss every other idea or belief not consistent with your professed belief (dogma). I think that is ultimately too arogant a position for me and a view at odds with the general complexity of life.

jeyla
08-06-2009, 23:57
Are we going to discuss the unbelievable long-term syphilis effect on his mental health or the "God is Dead" claim? If the latter, then to be impartial, we have to admit that after "the Great Enlightenment" he changed his mind and agreed that God is alive.

From his letters:

"Turin, January 3, 1889: Letter to Meta von Salis-Marschlins

God is on the earth. Don't you see how all the heavens are rejoicing? I have just seized possession of my kingdom, I've thrown the Pope in prison, and I’m having Wilhelm, Bismarck, and [anti-Semitic politician Adolf] Stoecker shot.

The Crucified."

:10293:
im a therapist so i hold childhood trauma very close to my heart - it shapes us in many ways, sometimes into great thinkers, sometimes into great perverts ;-)

in my opinion god and organized religion (in an administrative sense) are necessary human inventions: they answer to the ever present and inescapable death anxiety and as far as neurotic overcompensation for such a (natural) fear goes, its probably one of the better ones unless we get carried away and then we end up with religious extremists who are as useless to the advancement of our species as a backscratcher and just generally piss me off...

what we should learn from nietzsche is that we can potentially be a lot more than just insignificant specks in the vastness in the universe (i cant remember who said that, sorry) and the idea of overcoming yourself can be a very empowering one - there have been some fascinating theories as to what a nietzschean form of psychotherapy would be like!

and like all great ideas it can also be easily abused and distorted... on the bright side we always have the eternal recurrence to set us straight in our decision making process ;-) again, very useful in therapy :-)

Jack17
09-06-2009, 00:25
jeyla, do you think a Nietzchean based therapy would be consistent with a Jungian based therapy? No subtext in this question; since I admire both authors, just interested in your professional opinion. Is there a particular school of psychotherapy upon which your training is based?

jeyla
09-06-2009, 00:53
jeyla, do you think a Nietzchean based therapy would be consistent with a Jungian based therapy? No subtext in this question; since I admire both authors, just interested in your professional opinion. Is there a particular school of psychotherapy upon which your training is based?
im very psychodynamically oriented but i try to adapt to whatever works best for the client, very few people come to therapy for genuine insight, most seem to want a magic pill ;-)

i've found transactional analysis to be very practical and if combined with a more existential stance, it can actually go into great depths but i know it doesnt have the best reputation - TA is often dumbed down to its catchy terms...

a jungian might say that the overman is just another archetype whereas a nietzschean psychotherapist would argue that it is the ultimate actualization of the self (to use maslow's term)

alternatively, the overman would be so completely aware of his unconscious, that he would have transcended all the archetypes, which would mean, hypothetically of course, that we are all overmen at the core but that core self is weighed down by our archetypal neuroticism - this kinda makes for a new definition of the self :-)

Jack17
09-06-2009, 01:45
jeyla, thanks for your reply. I think your last post is probably the brightest thing I've read in a long time. Your last sentence really has me thinking - "weighed down by our archetypal neuroticism" I can certainly relate to the "weighed down by neuraticism" part, no shortage of that for me. But I wonder if you would give me an example of an archetype that would do that? It's been many years since I've read through the Bollingen series of books. The more I think of a "Nietzchean" therapy, the more I like it. Impresses me as the ultimate in a "tough love" approach; let's peal away all the self delusion and narcicism until we reach the real you (can't help of thinking of Jackie Mason's shtick when I say that). Anyway, from your intelligent formulation of the two approaches, I think I would prefer the Nietzchean to the Jungian. Thanks again; I only know enough to know you're a very smart lady.

Korotky Gennady
09-06-2009, 03:17
Сertainlly so many western people are mentally sick. There are already two therapists on one this forum. Mickey is an old one, jeyla is a new one.

Korotky Gennady
09-06-2009, 03:20
Objective reality?..
Ok, no more questions. You are right - no reasons for indulging in demagogy.

You are an objective reality and I am too. It's phylosophy... Have no doubts.

Korotky Gennady
09-06-2009, 03:26
im very psychodynamically oriented but i try to adapt to whatever works best for the client, very few people come to therapy for genuine insight, most seem to want a magic pill ;-)




Vodka works as the best one does

Korotky Gennady
09-06-2009, 03:33
alternatively, the overman would be so completely aware of his unconscious, that he would have transcended all the archetypes, which would mean, hypothetically of course, that we are all overmen at the core but that core self is weighed down by our archetypal neuroticism - this kinda makes for a new definition of the self :-)Only now I understood how much deep sick the western people are... In fact they almost all are in hands of schizophrenia.

Qdos
09-06-2009, 03:39
Сertainlly so many western people are mentally sick. There are already two therapists on one this forum.

So you don't think the forum is perhaps the cause of these various psychoses? :devilish:

I thought our American brethren considered it chic to have a therapist, well a shrink, a psychotherapist, call such a professional by whichever name you're comfortable with... apparently it's especially fashionable in New York city or California...

Seriously however, there's a significant amount of mental illness in Russia too, I've seen a great deal more paranoia and inferiority type complexes than would be considered normal in western Europe; not to mention what alcohol can cause in the way of mental health problems :rolleyes:

In terms of statistics I believe that something like a quarter to a third of all of us will normally be expected to suffer with some kind of psychological problems during our lifetimes, whether it be depression, anxiety, or anything classified as a more profound kind of mental health affliction...

Some folks might even argue these psychoses evidence the lack of a God... :)

Korotky Gennady
09-06-2009, 03:56
So you don't think the forum is perhaps the cause of these various psychoses? :devilish:

I thought our American brethren considered it chic to have a therapist, well a shrink, a psychotherapist, call such a professional by whichever name you're comfortable with... apparently it's especially fashionable in New York city or California...:) If you have enough money, you can afford to have not only psychotherapist but even a wife.

To have wife is a chic even in California...







In terms of statistics I believe that something like a quarter to a third of all of us will normally be expected to suffer with some kind of psychological problems during our lifetimes, whether it be depression, anxiety, or anything classified as a more profound kind of mental health affliction...

Some folks might even argue these psychoses evidence the lack of a God... :)There are folks who can dare to argue that these "psychoses" and "neuraticisms" evidence the palpable lack of mind...

Qdos
09-06-2009, 04:28
If you have enough money, you can afford to have not only psychotherapist but even a wife.

To have wife is a chic even in California...

Especially one with silicone boobies, heh? :trampoline:


There are folks who can dare to argue that these "psychoses" and "neuraticisms" evidence the palpable lack of mind...

Conversely it's often an over active mind which causes many problems, and mental illness often affects the most intelligent people, in fact, some of the worlds most brilliant artists and engineers have suffered from autism very profoundly... :)

OlgaT
09-06-2009, 10:51
You are an objective reality and I am too. It's phylosophy... Have no doubts.
Are you sure I am an objective reality for you? You see me the same way like I do myself? You have no doubts - you are lucky.

By the way, you forgot to mention that matter precedes thought. Of course, it's so easy. Everything was very easy in soviet philosophy, wasn't it? Dialectical materialism, marxism-leninism, objective reality - when I meet such monsters of homo soveticus's damaged mind I can do nothing but to give up. :bowdown:
... and have no more questions.

Long Live the USSR and its ideology! :cheerleader:

jeyla
09-06-2009, 11:13
jeyla, thanks for your reply. I think your last post is probably the brightest thing I've read in a long time. Your last sentence really has me thinking - "weighed down by our archetypal neuroticism" I can certainly relate to the "weighed down by neuraticism" part, no shortage of that for me. But I wonder if you would give me an example of an archetype that would do that? It's been many years since I've read through the Bollingen series of books. The more I think of a "Nietzchean" therapy, the more I like it. Impresses me as the ultimate in a "tough love" approach; let's peal away all the self delusion and narcicism until we reach the real you (can't help of thinking of Jackie Mason's shtick when I say that). Anyway, from your intelligent formulation of the two approaches, I think I would prefer the Nietzchean to the Jungian. Thanks again; I only know enough to know you're a very smart lady.
thank you and you give me far too much credit :-)

one of the parent archetypes is probably a good example - the mother or the father - and a prime example is the young woman who suddenly realizes that she's turned into her own mother or the young man who follows in his father's footsteps into a career he hates and finds himself burned out and dead inside 20 years down the line... sometimes making choices for other people instead of for ourselves is one of the worst things we can do in life...

and then we go into therapy and decide to change careers mid life, which often works out very well i must say :-)

jeyla
09-06-2009, 11:21
Сertainlly so many western people are mentally sick. There are already two therapists on one this forum. Mickey is an old one, jeyla is a new one.
what you are exhibiting is a number of things, all of them primitive ego defense mechanisms: denial, projection and resistance, enjoy, i have no doubt that rationalization and regression are all on their way :-) oh and im russian, thank you very much

and olga, you have pretty much summed up anything and everything i could have said on philosophical sovietism! thank you! that was quite brilliant :-)

DDT
09-06-2009, 11:45
Show some archeological proof and then we will talk again. I stand firm that Allah has nothing to do with moon God. And i didn't say he single handedly invented. Kuran was written by the very same people who wrote bible and torah and tanakh to put weak minded people in order. Fear of a higher being needed to be used to control people.
Is that why Mohamed chose the pagan moon god's symbol, the crescent moon, for islam's banner? .....Hmmm? Is that why Mohamed's religion reveres the Kabaa and marches around it just like the Moon worshippers did? Is that why Mecca is sacred to both Muslims and Moon worshippers? hmm.....hmmmmmm???

Allah the moon god! Complete with carved statues.
ALLAH, the Moon God (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

16075


As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.

According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al- ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Coon pointed out, "he god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al- ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names.

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

This fact answers the questions, "Why is Allah never defined in the Qur'an? Why did Muhammad assume that the pagan Arabs already knew who Allah was?" Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs.

The Arabs worshipped the Moon-god as a supreme deity. But this was not biblical monotheism. While the Moon-god was greater than all other gods and goddesses, this was still a polytheistic pantheon of deities. Now that we have the actual idols of the Moon-god, it is no longer possible to avoid the fact that Allah was a pagan god in pre-Islamic times. Is it any wonder then that the symbol of Islam is the crescent moon? That a crescent moon sits on top of their mosques and minarets? That a crescent moon is found on the flags of Islamic nations? That the Muslims fast during the month which begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon in the sky?

The pagan Arabs worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; killing an animal in sacrifice to the Moon-god; throwing stones at the devil; fasting for the month which begins and ends with the crescent moon; giving alms to the poor, etc.

Lipstick on a pig is still a pig!

Jack17
09-06-2009, 11:46
what you are exhibiting is a number of things, all of them primitive ego defense mechanisms: denial, projection and resistance, enjoy, i have no doubt that rationalization and regression are all on their way :-) oh and im russian, thank you very much

and olga, you have pretty much summed up anything and everything i could have said on philosophical sovietism! thank you! that was quite brilliant :-)

If you don't mind saying, are most of your patients expats, or natives?

DDT
09-06-2009, 11:48
If you don't mind saying, are most of your patients expats, or natives?

Either way I'll bet they are mostly shrinks aswell!

Matt24
09-06-2009, 12:15
[QUOTE=DDT;


Lipstick on a pig is still a pig![/QUOTE]

Actually lipstick on a pig is still lipstick.

Matt

Qdos
09-06-2009, 13:23
Long Live the USSR and its ideology! :cheerleader:

I'll drink to that... :devilish:

Willy
09-06-2009, 13:23
Lipstick on a pig?


Now that's sick!

OlgaT
09-06-2009, 15:16
and olga, you have pretty much summed up anything and everything i could have said on philosophical sovietism! thank you! that was quite brilliant :-)
Thank you jeyla.
I will never forget my fightings with a university professor when I studied philosophy - he was about 70 years old and thus he was a strong socialist educated in the best traditions of diamat. And that man was my scientific adviser... :nut:

I'll drink to that... :devilish:
Thanks Qdos, I will join you with pleasure (in another thread - you know where) :beerbros:

jeyla
09-06-2009, 15:20
If you don't mind saying, are most of your patients expats, or natives?
expats, not surprisingly, natives have a great deal of misconceptions about therapy and how it works... they usually want a quick fix, preferably in pill form, and dont want to understand the crucial importance of the therapeutic process and the hard work it involves - its not all hugs and kisses...

plus there's still a certain stigma associated with it, it's a very popular subject but to actually go into therapy is still a bit of an odd thing to do... people seem to have this basic prejudice that those who need to see a therapist are severely mentally disturbed, whereas in reality, it is the healthier person who chooses to address his/her problems before they escalate and get out of hand... im probably gonna get lapidated for this, but in my experience, trying to engage in a therapeutic session with a soviet is like having to re-invent the wheel all over again! its a very different mindset!

Qdos
09-06-2009, 15:29
People seem to have this basic prejudice that those who need to see a therapist are severely mentally disturbed... <snip>... trying to engage in a therapeutic session with a soviet is like having to re-invent the wheel all over again!

Both valid points I could forsee as pre-formed stereotypical views; if only the health services and patients would treat psychological disabilities as seriously as broken limbs... well, the world would be a much better place... :)

MickeyTong
09-06-2009, 15:32
..... some of the worlds most brilliant artists and engineers have suffered from autism very profoundly... :)

In fact Ali G/Borat/Bruno (Sasha Baron-Cohen) has a cousin, Simon Baron-Cohen, who is Britain's top autism specialist.
Feministas will not be surprised to learn that he considers autism to be an extreme form of the "male mind".

MickeyTong
09-06-2009, 15:40
Both valid points I could forsee as pre-formed stereotypical views; if only the health services and patients would treat psychological disabilities as seriously as broken limbs... well, the world would be a much better place... :)

There is a huge stigma attached to mental health problems: they are seen as something to be afraid of or ridiculed.
And people are afraid of treatment, too. They think they'll be zapped with ECT, pumped full of heavy-duty tranquillisers or found to have an irreparable and unacceptable flaw in their personalities.

jeyla
09-06-2009, 15:41
Both valid points I could forsee as pre-formed stereotypical views; if only the health services and patients would treat psychological disabilities as seriously as broken limbs... well, the world would be a much better place... :)
i agree wholeheartedly! there is a child whose parents call me and tell me the most heartbreaking stories how much she needs help (supposedly she's autistic but dont get me started on misdiagnosis) yet when i tell them to bring her to moscow to see me, they back out saying its "too much trouble"!!! and these are very very very wealthy people so its not a matter of having to afford a plane ticket! (they live in azerbaijan)

i think she is at this point a conversation piece to them and i find it repulsive that they would jet set around the world for weddings and parties but not do anything constructive to help their own daughter!

rusmeister
09-06-2009, 15:52
"On Reading" from The Common Man

"I wonder who has the patience to read that much these days, the age of ADD and ADHD?"

RM, I would say that G. K. Chesterson had an immature view of Nietzche probably stunted in his childhood.

It's clear to me from your G.K.C. quote that he was no Nietzche scholar; but then, neither am I; so we're on at least equal footing when I say that the last thing Nietzche would have wanted are "followers" or disciples. I believe it was the whole point, in much of his work, not to present specifically new ideas; but to conduct a "reevaluation of all values" not according to Christian, but pre-socratic philisophical norms. In that sense, I don't believe he thought he was expressing anything particular new, rather ideas and "values" that were actually quite old - older than Christianity. As for Shakespeare, Nietzche was a great admirer of the poet, "What is all Hamlet's melancholy compared with the melancholy of Brutus!-and perhaps Shakespeare knew this too, as we knew that, out of experience!" I think Nietzche would have been the first to acknowledge many, if not most, of his insights were expressed earlier by Shakespeare.

Your dismissive quote on Nietzche highlights a key reason I've never been able to subscribe to a specific dogma; doing so, requires you to dismiss every other idea or belief not consistent with your professed belief (dogma). I think that is ultimately too arogant a position for me and a view at odds with the general complexity of life.

Hmmm. Looks to me like a quick dismissal of the points without really engaging with them. I could probably turn this around: Your dismissive quote on Chesterton highlights a key reason I've never been able to accept that one can operate without dogmas, consciously or not; doing so, requires you to dismiss every other idea or belief not consistent with your professed belief in the invalidity of dogma.
FWIW, dogma means
1541 (implied in dogmatist), from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). If you really think something true, then smile! You hold a dogma!

On followers, the point was not that Nietzsche wanted them, but that he has them.

It looks like you completely misunderstood what Chesterton said. He points out that those 'bad old ideas' are put into the mouths of people who are wrong from the start, who have a wrong understanding of the universe. So Nietzsche may have admired Shakespeare, but he obviously didn't get what Shakespeare said about Nietzsche's ideals.

You describe my position as based on arrogance. How, if it is the truth? What does arrogance have to do with it? Was Newton arrogant in declaring the law of gravity? Einstein in promoting his theory of relativity? Journalists in reporting the Holocaust? Of course other positions must be dismissed if they contradict the truth - if they are actually wrong. It's not arrogance - it's a question of identifying what is true and excluding what is false (why do we put down Holocaust deniers so forcefully in the public sphere, for example?).

I do agree on the complexity of life. That is precisely why I adhere to a tremendously complex faith that I have found to correctly describe much of that complexity - and everything regarding the place of man in the universe. It supports the complexity of life - it does not contradict it.

Qdos
09-06-2009, 15:54
There is a huge stigma attached to mental health problems: they are seen as something to be afraid of or ridiculed.
And people are afraid of treatment, too. They think they'll be zapped with ECT, pumped full of heavy-duty tranquillisers or found to have an irreparable and unacceptable flaw in their personalities.

Not to mention Lithium... :lovepot:

MickeyTong
09-06-2009, 16:03
Not to mention Lithium... :lovepot:

Lithium is just a mood-stabilising salt.

ahmettombak
09-06-2009, 16:41
@DDT
ALLAH, the Moon God (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm)

Is this your source? Biblebelievers.org.au :)
I'm sure this is a far more reliable source than wikipedia. Why don't you change your nick to biblebeliever. It defines you better than your current nick :)

If you want to learn something just read :)

http://www.kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&y=s_middle&kid=14&sid=41
Quran 41:37 - Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. prostrate not to the Sun and the Moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.

We see here that if pre-islamic arabs worshipped moon, Quran system rejected the threats and wanted arabs only to fear Allah.

Arabian mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Palm_tree_symbol.svg" class="image"><img alt="Palm tree symbol.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Palm_tree_symbol.svg/20px-Palm_tree_symbol.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0b/Palm_tree_symbol.svg/20px-Palm_tree_symbol.svg.png
Since you have a point i might add that every book written by humans must have inspiration points and arabian mythology must be one of these.
Allat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lunar deity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
Hilal is the word which you make your point and in Arabic it meens crescent moon.
Hilal (god) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png

MickeyTong
09-06-2009, 16:42
Rusmeister - what other complex faiths have you seriously engaged with, and what was lacking in them but present in Orthodox Christianity?

Russian Lad
09-06-2009, 17:43
Are you sure I am an objective reality for you? You see me the same way like I do myself? You have no doubts - you are lucky.

By the way, you forgot to mention that matter precedes thought. Of course, it's so easy. Everything was very easy in soviet philosophy, wasn't it? Dialectical materialism, marxism-leninism, objective reality - when I meet such monsters of homo soveticus's damaged mind I can do nothing but to give up.
... and have no more questions.

Long Live the USSR and its ideology!

You have a body, it has bones, tissue, blood, etc. Functionally you eat, sleep, walk, defecate, urinate, have sex, and so on. You also have a brain that controls all those numerous physical activities. Your body is functioning on the planet called Earth, one of many in the Universe. If you disappear from the Universe the latter will continue its existence, just as unperturbed as before your haphazard appearace. If the Universe disappears you are bound to disappear with it. Your death will be the same play of chance as your birth. This is objective reality. Your belief in a God is a subjective reality, based on the subconscious fear of death and the desire to obtain "favors" from God you believe in (for yourself and maybe for the people dear to you) - good health, money, healthy children, eternal life after death, etc. And USSR has nothing to do with it.

Jack17
09-06-2009, 17:51
"You describe my position as based on arrogance. How, if it is the truth? What does arrogance have to do with it? Was Newton arrogant in declaring the law of gravity? Einstein in promoting his theory of relativity?"

Allow me to define my words. I used "dogma" in the context provided by Wikapeadia: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from." Also, to be fare, I did not say you or your opinions were arrogant, I said for me to hold to a dogma is too arrogant. Your quote above provides an excellent example of why it is that way for me because I view life as too complex. Neither Newton nor Einstein's view of the universe is entirely accurate nor definitive. Einstein, to his credit, even stated that there needed to be some further "unifying theory" of physics before the, so to speak, whole story could be known. By the way, as Newton was writing his Principia Mathematica, he was also a committed metaphysician trying to devise new methods to turn base metals into gold. My point is simply that whether it is Newton, Einstein, Freud, Jung, Adler, Nietzche, Shakespeare, Aquinas or Epictetus, they all provide valuable information and insights into life, but none of them are (for me) definitive. As I've written before in this thread, religion too provides important insights. As for "followers" of Nietzsche, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. Do you know of followers of Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein too? You may be correct; it's just that I've never heard of such a group. I think the difference between our positions is that you hold the Orthodox Faith to be true; I hold it to contain many truths. I hold much of what the Pope says to be true; but I think his insistance that using condoms is sinnful is rubish, just as I depart from his and the Metropolitan's views on homosexuality.

DDT
09-06-2009, 19:32
Lipstick on a pig?


Now that's sick!
It was a quote from Obama, who said this concerning Sara Palin, during his campaign!

DDT
09-06-2009, 19:41
expats, not surprisingly, natives have a great deal of misconceptions about therapy and how it works... they usually want a quick fix, preferably in pill form, and dont want to understand the crucial importance of the therapeutic process and the hard work it involves - its not all hugs and kisses...

That's because they don't have 5 and 10 years to get their lives sorted out! They need their lives sorted out right away otherwise most of them won't HAVE any lives. 10 years of therapy and only half of Borderlines are fixed! Who's to say that the therapy even played any part in that? They could have fixed themselves in that amount of time for all we know. Give them the godam pills ....and plenty of 'em!

Willy
09-06-2009, 21:45
It was a quote from Obama, who said this concerning Sara Palin, during his campaign!


Sara Palin? That even sicker!

MickeyTong
09-06-2009, 22:02
That's because they don't have 5 and 10 years to get their lives sorted out! They need their lives sorted out right away otherwise most of them won't HAVE any lives. 10 years of therapy and only half of Borderlines are fixed! Who's to say that the therapy even played any part in that? They could have fixed themselves in that amount of time for all we know. Give them the godam pills ....and plenty of 'em!

Borderlines!!! Nothing is ever their responsibility! And they love to hold onto their traumas.

Where do you get your 5 and 10 years from?

rusmeister
09-06-2009, 22:15
Rusmeister - what other complex faiths have you seriously engaged with, and what was lacking in them but present in Orthodox Christianity?
I think as a question that that is disingenuous, as there is a practical limit to the number of faiths a person can seriously engage with in their lifetime - 2 or 3 max? If it's more than that, I call it "faith shopping", not serious engagement.
Still...
I was seriously a Baptist for several years. The answer to your question is broad, but in extreme short, in worship, theology and history Orthodoxy has a tremendous headstart (over 1,500 years).

Just for example, in worship - a Baptist pastor is the star of the show. the success or failure of the service depends on him and his work. Not so in Orthodoxy. The priest can be a low-watt light bulb; but if he does his job it doesn't matter.

In the Baptist faith, the pastor preaches the Gospel according to him. He gives his own personal interpretation on Scripture (as Baptists do in general) leading to a fair amount of doctrinal disagreement. In orthodoxy, everything must conform to existing Tradition. A priest may not have a personal opinion on doctrinal matters. he accepts Orthodoxy, or he doesn't.

The Baptist view of salvation and hell can be described as "once saved, always saved" - ie, if you said the sinner's prayer once, you are guaranteed your "get out of hell free" card. You cannot lose salvation, even if you should want to (a denial of free will). If your life after that is not terribly Christian, then either "you lose some crowns in heaven or you "were never really saved". And the person who did not do exactly what the Baptists say is doomed to hell forever immediately upon death.
In Orthodoxy, there are no such guarantees. We are "being saved" - it is a process. You can always, through free will, let go of the lifeline if you really choose to. And God is the final Judge of salvation, and can save whom He will, regardless of our imperfect perceptions. In short, I don't have to (and really can't) judge others. I need to worry about myself.

Once I figured out that, according to Baptist theology, an essentially selfish God created humanity, knowing most would not choose God's path of salvation, and thereby be condemned to hell, so that he could have a small number of people who voluntarily chose Him, I abandoned the Baptist faith. There were other factors, but that was a big one.

rusmeister
09-06-2009, 22:23
"You describe my position as based on arrogance. How, if it is the truth? What does arrogance have to do with it? Was Newton arrogant in declaring the law of gravity? Einstein in promoting his theory of relativity?"

Allow me to define my words. I used "dogma" in the context provided by Wikapeadia: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from." Also, to be fare, I did not say you or your opinions were arrogant, I said for me to hold to a dogma is too arrogant. Your quote above provides an excellent example of why it is that way for me because I view life as too complex. Neither Newton nor Einstein's view of the universe is entirely accurate nor definitive. Einstein, to his credit, even stated that there needed to be some further "unifying theory" of physics before the, so to speak, whole story could be known. By the way, as Newton was writing his Principia Mathematica, he was also a committed metaphysician trying to devise new methods to turn base metals into gold. My point is simply that whether it is Newton, Einstein, Freud, Jung, Adler, Nietzche, Shakespeare, Aquinas or Epictetus, they all provide valuable information and insights into life, but none of them are (for me) definitive. As I've written before in this thread, religion too provides important insights. As for "followers" of Nietzsche, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. Do you know of followers of Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein too? You may be correct; it's just that I've never heard of such a group. I think the difference between our positions is that you hold the Orthodox Faith to be true; I hold it to contain many truths. I hold much of what the Pope says to be true; but I think his insistance that using condoms is sinnful is rubish, just as I depart from his and the Metropolitan's views on homosexuality.

Understood. However, is till hold to the broader definition of dogma. If you believe that there is no way people can actually discover, in any way, shape or form, the actual truth about the nature of the universe, who created it and why are we here, then that is a dogma if it is equally "not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from". Thus, one can hold dogmas as an atheist or agnostic, and reject claims by people of faith out of hand regardless of whatever evidence or arguments may be presented.

I actually agree that science and philosophy, on their own, cannot reveal that complete truth (so I'm with you there), and that it is only possible via revelation - ie, if the Creator comes down and says, "Hey, I created the world and you, too" - which is precisely what Christianity claims.

The Pope's insistence on condoms is based on that worldview, which, if true, logically follows. I agree with the Pope and it's not rubbish. You simply dogmatically reject the claim of Christianity touching on the (fallen) nature of man - in this case, sexuality.

Just some counter thoughts to chew on...

jeyla
09-06-2009, 22:57
Borderlines!!! Nothing is ever their responsibility! And they love to hold onto their traumas.

Where do you get your 5 and 10 years from?
i think at this point DDT is serving as a case example ;-)

and not even a die hard freudian would go along with 10 years!!! as for the pills, you should consider some of the side effects... besides, if you spend your life on happy pills, well then, doesnt sound like that much of a life to me, just a chemically induced illusion of contentment - what are you going to do when the pills run out? medication should never be an end in itself! a means to an end, yes, e.g. you lift the depression to be able to do the work, but no therapist in their right mind would send a clinical patient off to the pharmacy with a prescription for unlimited refills! well here they might ;-)

jeyla
09-06-2009, 22:57
That's because they don't have 5 and 10 years to get their lives sorted out! They need their lives sorted out right away otherwise most of them won't HAVE any lives. 10 years of therapy and only half of Borderlines are fixed! Who's to say that the therapy even played any part in that? They could have fixed themselves in that amount of time for all we know. Give them the godam pills ....and plenty of 'em!
sounds like you might have some to spare ;-)

Qdos
09-06-2009, 23:01
sounds like you might have some to spare ;-)

He positively rattles I'm sure, but I doubt he's alone.

You made it onto DDT's Current Affairs Daily Quotation thread today by the way Jeyla... :devilish:

Jack17
09-06-2009, 23:31
". . .if you spend your life on happy pills, well then, doesnt sound like that much of a life to me. . ."

How about spending your life on Happy Vodka? Can 75M Russian men be wrong? And that's not counting the Swedes.

is4fun
09-06-2009, 23:34
". . .if you spend your life on happy pills, well then, doesnt sound like that much of a life to me. . ."

How about spending your life on Happy Vodka? Can 75M Russian men be wrong? And that's not counting the Swedes.

Let's not leave out probably half the women. LOL

jeyla
09-06-2009, 23:40
alcohol is a wonderful thing: it is my belief that when used appropriately, it can solve all of the world's problems :-)

oh and if you re mixing alcohol with women, you have to make sure you get the proportions right or at the very least do it in a proper strip club where all the women will still be hot when you sober up ;-)

Jack17
09-06-2009, 23:59
". . .and that it is only possible via revelation - ie, if the Creator comes down and says, "Hey, I created the world and you, too" - which is precisely what Christianity claims."

Rusmeister, you sure you weren't trained by the Jesuits? You're a very good debater. However, your quote from above is an article of faith, not fact. I prefer to form my world view from fact. I'm agnostic; I don't know. I'm not saying that the exact nature of the Universe, how it came to be, etc., etc., can't be known; I'm only saying the jury is still out on the question at the present time. For me, today, these questions are the magnum mysterium; which, ironically, forms the basis for my attraction to the Russian Orthodox Church - Faith, Belief, is ultimately a mystery. I especially enjoyed your comparison of the Baptist Minister to the Orthodox Priest. Every Baptist Church is almost a "cult of personality" but the Orthodox Priest might as well be a masked Kabuki player - the ritual has nothing to do with him personally; the focus is not on the priest; but on timeless mysteries and beliefs. I think it is significant that Christ said to Thomas, "Oh ye of little faith . . ." He did not say, 'Oh ye of little deductive reasoning and logic.' What you want to say is that I am as dogmatic as you. That might be true, if I was emphatically saying only this is possible or only that, etc. All I am saying, with respect to the meaning of life and origin of the universe, - I don't know. It's a statement of fact only applicable to me, not a dogma. Please don't take my arguments personally. I am married to a devout Russian Orthodox women. Our house is peppered with Ikona and little devotional alters of all kind. For my wife, all of this worship is a way of expressing what is immutable and mysterious in life. She, as I, does not know; but she believes. I'm willing to except that as a blessed state of being; that, sadly, is not available to me. We have a wonderful German Shepard dog who is (really) fluent in her understanding of three languages. This dog has a whole reality open to her through her nose that is not available to you and me. But as smart as this animal is, she has no notion of a "Universe" or "Black Holes" or, for that matter, of saving grace. I have often thought why it should be any different for we humans? Maybe our minds are only capable of comprehending so much? Maybe there is a limit to our understanding of "reality" and the universe. For many, like my wife, that is where faith begins; for me, I simply say, I don't know.

MickeyTong
10-06-2009, 00:04
I think as a question that that is disingenuous, as there is a practical limit to the number of faiths a person can seriously engage with in their lifetime - 2 or 3 max? If it's more than that, I call it "faith shopping", not serious engagement.
Still...
I was seriously a Baptist for several years. The answer to your question is broad, but in extreme short, in worship, theology and history Orthodoxy has a tremendous headstart (over 1,500 years).

Just for example, in worship - a Baptist pastor is the star of the show. the success or failure of the service depends on him and his work. Not so in Orthodoxy. The priest can be a low-watt light bulb; but if he does his job it doesn't matter.

In the Baptist faith, the pastor preaches the Gospel according to him. He gives his own personal interpretation on Scripture (as Baptists do in general) leading to a fair amount of doctrinal disagreement. In orthodoxy, everything must conform to existing Tradition. A priest may not have a personal opinion on doctrinal matters. he accepts Orthodoxy, or he doesn't.

The Baptist view of salvation and hell can be described as "once saved, always saved" - ie, if you said the sinner's prayer once, you are guaranteed your "get out of hell free" card. You cannot lose salvation, even if you should want to (a denial of free will). If your life after that is not terribly Christian, then either "you lose some crowns in heaven or you "were never really saved". And the person who did not do exactly what the Baptists say is doomed to hell forever immediately upon death.
In Orthodoxy, there are no such guarantees. We are "being saved" - it is a process. You can always, through free will, let go of the lifeline if you really choose to. And God is the final Judge of salvation, and can save whom He will, regardless of our imperfect perceptions. In short, I don't have to (and really can't) judge others. I need to worry about myself.

Once I figured out that, according to Baptist theology, an essentially selfish God created humanity, knowing most would not choose God's path of salvation, and thereby be condemned to hell, so that he could have a small number of people who voluntarily chose Him, I abandoned the Baptist faith. There were other factors, but that was a big one.

Thanks for your frank post, Rusmeister.

Disingenuous??? Ouch. Not at all. You have said that people who reject Christianity probably have only a child's understanding of it, so I wondered what level of understanding you had of other denominations/religions in order to maturely reject them in favour of Orthodoxy. Not just you, personally, but anyone who has settled for any of the extant religious dogmas, including non-Christian systems. Why not Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Orthodox Judaism, Paganism, Coptic Christianity.....

I agree that it's not possible to seriously engage with many religions in order to assess them properly. But does that not leave us all in the position where we are obliged to accept one of those we have tested and found to be "fit for purpose", dismissing the others because of some objection based on our hard-won new doctrinaire viewpoint? e.g. A polytheist system cannot possibly be considered if we have a pre-conditioned and unchallengeable belief in monotheism.

Jack17
10-06-2009, 00:17
alcohol is a wonderful thing: it is my belief that when used appropriately, it can solve all of the world's problems :-)

oh and if you re mixing alcohol with women, you have to make sure you get the proportions right or at the very least do it in a proper strip club where all the women will still be hot when you sober up ;-)

You're so bad jeyla - you're good.

DDT
10-06-2009, 05:01
Borderlines!!! Nothing is ever their responsibility! And they love to hold onto their traumas.

Where do you get your 5 and 10 years from?
From people who had BPD, bad, and are cured now!

And I disagree that they hold onto their traumas. It's more like that these traumas are only important to them when they are having a mood swing. Otherwise, they couldn't give 2 hoots about the very same thing that bothered them.


as for the pills, you should consider some of the side effects... besides, if you spend your life on happy pills, well then, doesnt sound like that much of a life to me, just a chemically induced illusion of contentment - what are you going to do when the pills run out? medication should never be an end in itself! a means to an end, yes, e.g. you lift the depression to be able to do the work, but no therapist in their right mind would send a clinical patient off to the pharmacy with a prescription for unlimited refills! well here they might ;-)

Those pills may be the only difference between some sort of death, jail or police involvement, let alone a job and relationship. So, health and side effects come in second. I agree with M Tongs statement earlier on another thread that the pills give a window of opportunity to sort out your traumas and problems. Without the pills you go straight to jail...so to speak.



There is a huge stigma attached to mental health problems: they are seen as something to be afraid of or ridiculed.
And people are afraid of treatment, too. They think they'll be zapped with ECT, pumped full of heavy-duty tranquillisers or found to have an irreparable and unacceptable flaw in their personalities. I hear that electro therapy is actually alive and well...even in the USA!

I know of one Russian therapist that does not even believe in BPD. Her therapy basically consists of "Pull your socks up" which doesn't work. Borderlines already know they should pull their socks up. The trouble is that when they are having an episode they can't. They don't know that they have switched!

Russian Lad
10-06-2009, 07:01
Without the pills you go straight to jail...so to speak.


So, what pills are you using, then, to collect your marbles? Spill the beans!:)

DDT
10-06-2009, 09:06
So, what pills are you using, then, to collect your marbles? Spill the beans!:)
Unfortunately I am not at liberty to take any of the fine pills available at this stage of my life. I can only dream!

MickeyTong
10-06-2009, 16:25
From people who had BPD, bad, and are cured now!

You think personality disorders can be rectified quickly? Some of them just burn out with age....

And I disagree that they hold onto their traumas. It's more like that these traumas are only important to them when they are having a mood swing. Otherwise, they couldn't give 2 hoots about the very same thing that bothered them.

Where do you think the mood swings come from? Unless the trauma is adequately addressed it won't go away, and will continue to throw the person into extreme fluctuations of self-esteem, and the value he puts on other people and experiences: e.g. not giving 2 hoots at times and being overwhelmed at other times.
People can become stuck with traumatic experiences, partly because "moving on" can imply that the experience is no longer important.

I hear that electro therapy is actually alive and well...even in the USA!

I don't know about the States, but in UK ECT is used only in seriously refractory cases of depression, as an emergency life-saving intervention, or when it's the patient's preferred option.

I know of one Russian therapist that does not even believe in BPD. Her therapy basically consists of "Pull your socks up" which doesn't work. Borderlines already know they should pull their socks up. The trouble is that when they are having an episode they can't. They don't know that they have switched!

They don't know that they've switched - no they think they are behaving appropriately. That's why they need analysis. The most effective treatment for people with BPD is psychodynamic group therapy.

Korotky Gennady
10-06-2009, 17:46
Conversely it's often an over active mind which causes many problems, and mental illness often affects the most intelligent people, in fact, some of the worlds most brilliant artists and engineers have suffered from autism very profoundly... :)Qdos, I know this but I meant that those "brilliant minds" were not minds at all becoz intellect isn't wisdom. So if a man is wise enough, he (or she) never be suffering from nevrotisms and other mental bad stuff.

And of course we can't say that many artists are clever and wise enough.

Korotky Gennady
10-06-2009, 18:15
Are you sure I am an objective reality for you? You see me the same way like I do myself? You have no doubts - you are lucky.: Of course I'm lucky becoz I have no doubts on this subject.

And the way you see yourself doesn't matter... becoz it doesn't deny that you continue to be the piece of objective reallity in anyway.




By the way, you forgot to mention that matter precedes thought. Of course, it's so easy. Everything was very easy in soviet philosophy, wasn't it? Dialectical materialism, marxism-leninism, objective reality - when I meet such monsters of homo soveticus's damaged mind I can do nothing but to give up. :bowdown:
... and have no more questions.

Long Live the USSR and its ideology! :cheerleader:By the way I don't forget it. And of course Matter precedes Any Our Thoughts about It. All soviet students knew this elementary fact Marx and Volodia Lenin spoke about.


But maybe english word "precede" isn't propper one in this case...

And just now I understand why i don't like the people with russian mentality so much... The russian people don't like truthes. When they don't like truthes, they start to speak pure bullsh..t and they start to try to argue that black is white, that 2 + 2 isn't 4, that Russia is rich and prosperous countrey and so on...

And please don't mess ideology with philosophy. The soviet people were high above in their intellectual development over the modern russian imbeciles who don't know anything... not philosophy, not ideology, not science... In fact they even don't know those religious dogmas which they kneel before.

OlgaT
10-06-2009, 21:11
Of course I'm lucky becoz I have no doubts on this subject.

And the way you see yourself doesn't matter... becoz it doesn't deny that you continue to be the piece of objective reallity in anyway.


By the way I don't forget it. And of course Matter precedes Any Our Thoughts about It. All soviet students knew this elementary fact Marx and Volodia Lenin spoke about.


But maybe english word "precede" isn't propper one in this case...

And just now I understand why i don't like the people with russian mentality so much... The russian people don't like truthes. When they don't like truthes, they start to speak pure bullsh..t and they start to try to argue that black is white, that 2 + 2 isn't 4, that Russia is rich and prosperous countrey and so on...

And please don't mess ideology with philosophy. The soviet people were high above in their intellectual development over the modern russian imbeciles who don't know anything... not philosophy, not ideology, not science... In fact they even don't know those religious dogmas which they kneel before.
Ok, I agree you may not be aware of numerous theories in philosophy which demolish the theory of objective reality (even without taking into account that the term "objective reality" was considered as a nonsense by some philosophers, since a term "reality" already means an entity which is not influenced by subjective mind. But I assume you don’t like philosophy so much to know it to such niceties.

I’m ready to take an example from a more strict science – physics, if you don’t mind. I’m sure you know what quantum physics is. But I wonder if you have heard anything about a so-called "observer effect". It states that the act of observation changes the phenomenon which is being observed. And that quantum-mechanical processes progress by different ways – it depends on whether they are observed or not (Schroedinger function).

And also do you agree that one principle should follow from the theory of objective reality – that unseen substances do not exist? But contemporary science knows a lot of examples when phenomenon exists but can’t be observed – like quarks or the Dirac sea – what your theory will be doing with them? Will it treat them like subjective phenomena?

English word "precede" in the phrase "matter precedes thought/mind" or "mind precedes matters" (which is also a rubbish for me) is a legitimate term, you can find it if open any philosophical dictionary in English.

I also don’t like Russian mentality – we like (sorry for using this pronoun) to discuss so much without knowing the essence. These "intelligent kitchen talkings", when people believe they re-open the world, but what they really do is just invite a wheel. What else I don’t like – when during these "kitchen talking" we discuss things the meaning of which we don’t know, but we have heard some scientific terms (thanks God, we studied at universities) and we think we are geniuses, the smartest nation in the world… And we don’t usually like to change our points of view since we are convinced in our rightness… and in stupidity of others.

I don’t mess ideology with philosophy, but unfortunately for our several generations and for the history of Russian philosophy, soviet philosophy functioned as ideology, that’s why we studied only diamat whereas western philosophical schools were strictly forbidden.

With the rest I agree.

jeyla
10-06-2009, 21:38
Those pills may be the only difference between some sort of death, jail or police involvement, let alone a job and relationship. So, health and side effects come in second. I agree with M Tongs statement earlier on another thread that the pills give a window of opportunity to sort out your traumas and problems. Without the pills you go straight to jail...so to speak.




that was actually a very good point! you need the pills, but you shouldn't aim at spending your entire life on them! the idea is to eventually phase them out (naturally this wont apply to serious clinical conditions)

Jack17
10-06-2009, 22:17
"the idea is to eventually phase them out"

But how often does that really happen? Nancy Reagan had it right, "Just say no."

I wonder what pills DDT was on when he was attending those Satanic rituals?

DDT
10-06-2009, 22:34
Nancy Reagan was an f'ing fruitcake! She was more likely to be talking to Satan!

jeyla
10-06-2009, 22:39
"the idea is to eventually phase them out"

But how often does that really happen? Nancy Reagan had it right, "Just say no."

I wonder what pills DDT was on when he was attending those Satanic rituals?
to "just say no" and go cold turkey on an average selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor would be a very unwise thing to do... and i've seen many people come off anti depressants etc quite nicely but it must be handled delicately...

and i think DDT has his moments... ;-) but they re not all chemically induced ;-)

MickeyTong
10-06-2009, 23:08
"the idea is to eventually phase them out"

But how often does that really happen? Nancy Reagan had it right, "Just say no."

Often enough. Monitoring medication and dosage should be part of anyone's regular clinical review.

Unfortunately there are very few facilities which offer effective treatment of personality disorders, so there are lots of people "maintained" on drugs.

MickeyTong
10-06-2009, 23:25
Furthermore :nono:

It's a common misconception that antidepressants induce a "false happiness". What they actually do is restore the brain's ability to experience the normal range of moods, rather than be stuck in misery and despair, and incapable of feeling pleasure or enthusiasm.

Some people need to be on antidepressants long-term.....
......just like some people need to take insulin or statins long-term.

Jack17
11-06-2009, 01:10
Often enough. Monitoring medication and dosage should be part of anyone's regular clinical review.

Unfortunately there are very few facilities which offer effective treatment of personality disorders, so there are lots of people "maintained" on drugs.

You and jeyla will have to excuse my flipant post; my reference to Nancy Reagan was of course facetious - somewhat. I understand prescription drugs are more abused than illegal substances. Of course, those prescription drugs are mostly pain killers.

I'm certain there are many people helped by psychotropic drugs; I just have a personal dislike for taking any medication. I can't help but wonder how much mental illness could be cured by rigorous physical exercise and copius amounts of sex.

Korotky Gennady
11-06-2009, 02:12
Furthermore :nono:

It's a common misconception that antidepressants induce a "false happiness". What they actually do is restore the brain's ability to experience the normal range of moods, rather than be stuck in misery and despair, and incapable of feeling pleasure or enthusiasm.

Some people need to be on antidepressants long-term.....
......just like some people need to take insulin or statins long-term.Mickey, vodka is better solution and the best answer.

Vodka is more cheap and more effective remedy. :) But of course you need take it in during very long period of time... maybe the course of healing with vodka could take the years. But vodka kills your constant feeling of misery and despair and it returns you to the ability to feel pleasure. It gives you high level of enthusiasm also.

MickeyTong
11-06-2009, 03:12
Mickey, vodka is better solution and the best answer.

Vodka is more cheap and more effective remedy. :) But of course you need take it in during very long period of time... maybe the course of healing with vodka could take the years. But vodka kills your constant feeling of misery and despair and it returns you to the ability to feel pleasure. It gives you high level of enthusiasm also.

Yeah, right.

Korotky Gennady
11-06-2009, 03:39
Доктор больному
- мы добились прогресса в вашем лечении
Больной
- и это вы называете прогрессом, неделю назад я быд наполеоном, а теперь я никто

( I'm sorry I'll try to translate it tomorrow )

Jack17
11-06-2009, 05:01
Доктор больному
- мы добились прогресса в вашем лечении
Больной
- и это вы называете прогрессом, неделю назад я быд наполеоном, а теперь я никто

( I'm sorry I'll try to translate it tomorrow )

если ты хочешь быть Наполеоном-пей "Пшеничную" много :11581:

rusmeister
11-06-2009, 19:08
Thanks for your frank post, Rusmeister.

Disingenuous??? Ouch. Not at all. You have said that people who reject Christianity probably have only a child's understanding of it, so I wondered what level of understanding you had of other denominations/religions in order to maturely reject them in favour of Orthodoxy. Not just you, personally, but anyone who has settled for any of the extant religious dogmas, including non-Christian systems. Why not Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Orthodox Judaism, Paganism, Coptic Christianity.....

I agree that it's not possible to seriously engage with many religions in order to assess them properly. But does that not leave us all in the position where we are obliged to accept one of those we have tested and found to be "fit for purpose", dismissing the others because of some objection based on our hard-won new doctrinaire viewpoint? e.g. A polytheist system cannot possibly be considered if we have a pre-conditioned and unchallengeable belief in monotheism.

Thanks, Mickey!
(Imagine if everyone started being polite and civil and everyone started ignoring people who were rude and insulting, as it became obvious that they were only ignorant. Intelligent, thoughtful, and considerate posts would become the norm...)
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that everyone who abandons Christianity has that "2nd-grader understanding" of it; only that that tends most often, in my experience, to be the case.
I think you have posed a good question. I suspect, however, that there is a creeping assumption there - that since there are so many claimants to the truth, none of them can actually be true. (Maybe that's not the case with you, but that's where that line of argument usually goes.) In that case, I take the position of the 'counterfeit bill analogy'. The fact that there are so many false ones is indicative that one of them MUST be genuine.

I think you are quite right. If we come to a dogma - understood properly as a hard-earned truth, established as truth, and not merely as unreasoning opinion, then claims that contradict that dogma must generally be rejected. Scientists do this all the time and no one thinks them unreasonable for doing so (if I may take the laws of thermodynamics as an example). But that only leaves us assuming a dogmatic position. That position can be based on reason, experience, both or neither. I would think your objections would really be to the latter (unless they are to the very idea of dogma as an established or accepted truth).

As to why not Hinduism, etc... I think that all of those faiths contain truths, some of them great truths. In my favorite analogy - the dartboard, they are all nearer to or further from the bullseye. My position is that Orthodox Christianity is the bullseye; Catholic, old Anglican, etc are really close, Protestant faiths are further out, Judaism still further, Hinduism a little further, Islam further than that, etc.

I'll recommend again, to those that fear no questioning of their convictions, GK Chesterton's outstanding book (free online - in the public domain) "The Everlasting Man (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)". It addresses that "why not" question at length, and is quite frankly, the best book I have ever read, bar none.

The introduction alone ought to be interesting enough for you.
That goes for you, too, Jack! :)

rusmeister
11-06-2009, 19:26
". . .and that it is only possible via revelation - ie, if the Creator comes down and says, "Hey, I created the world and you, too" - which is precisely what Christianity claims."

Rusmeister, you sure you weren't trained by the Jesuits? You're a very good debater. However, your quote from above is an article of faith, not fact. I prefer to form my world view from fact. I'm agnostic; I don't know. I'm not saying that the exact nature of the Universe, how it came to be, etc., etc., can't be known; I'm only saying the jury is still out on the question at the present time. For me, today, these questions are the magnum mysterium; which, ironically, forms the basis for my attraction to the Russian Orthodox Church - Faith, Belief, is ultimately a mystery. I especially enjoyed your comparison of the Baptist Minister to the Orthodox Priest. Every Baptist Church is almost a "cult of personality" but the Orthodox Priest might as well be a masked Kabuki player - the ritual has nothing to do with him personally; the focus is not on the priest; but on timeless mysteries and beliefs. I think it is significant that Christ said to Thomas, "Oh ye of little faith . . ." He did not say, 'Oh ye of little deductive reasoning and logic.' What you want to say is that I am as dogmatic as you. That might be true, if I was emphatically saying only this is possible or only that, etc. All I am saying, with respect to the meaning of life and origin of the universe, - I don't know. It's a statement of fact only applicable to me, not a dogma. Please don't take my arguments personally. I am married to a devout Russian Orthodox women. Our house is peppered with Ikona and little devotional alters of all kind. For my wife, all of this worship is a way of expressing what is immutable and mysterious in life. She, as I, does not know; but she believes. I'm willing to except that as a blessed state of being; that, sadly, is not available to me. We have a wonderful German Shepard dog who is (really) fluent in her understanding of three languages. This dog has a whole reality open to her through her nose that is not available to you and me. But as smart as this animal is, she has no notion of a "Universe" or "Black Holes" or, for that matter, of saving grace. I have often thought why it should be any different for we humans? Maybe our minds are only capable of comprehending so much? Maybe there is a limit to our understanding of "reality" and the universe. For many, like my wife, that is where faith begins; for me, I simply say, I don't know.

Thanks! I take the Jesuit training comment as a compliment, as well! (I think that if one will not be Orthodox, the next-best thing is to be Catholic...)

I think we might have different understandings of what "faith" and "fact" are. Very often, faith is seen to be something opposed to reason and incompatible with it; in addition, (and this was very true in my case and seems to be true in yours) it is often perceived as something involuntary. In my case, i told myself for years that I could not simply press a "belief button" and believe - that I needed certain knowledge or experience that I didn't have. However, i came to a point where I realized that it really does come down to a simple choice, that one can make IN SPITE OF evidence of the senses or what-have-you. Again, the Natalie Wood character saying, "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..." Another analogy comes from the 3rd Indiana Jones movie (The Last Crusade) - mostly a disaster, but the one scene in the end, when he has to "leap from the lion's mouth" makes it worth it, imo. All the evidence of his senses tells him that he will be killed if he jumps into the abyss. The fact proved to be accessible only through faith. It is the conscious choice of faith, in spite of that evidence, that enables him to make the leap - and discover that it was exactly the right thing to do. What that adds up to is that that blessed state of being, happily, IS available to you. but you would have to choose it. I'll grant that you may not be in the best or most comfortable position to do so - it is much easier when we feel convinced by experience - but you could if you really wanted to.

A question, if I may - is your wife also of intellectual leanings? Just curious, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to. (My own wife is, but not in the same directions as I am.)

I drove my wife to an Orthodox Church in CA for two years as a total lazy agnostic. Her priest just didn't do it for me. (It was actually Victor Sokolov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, now deceased, that did.) After meeting with him, I was chrismated (accepted into the Church without need for rebaptism) and two weeks later found myself on a plane to Russia to rejoin my wife and start a new life...

Jack17
11-06-2009, 20:40
Rusmeister, thanks, as always for your very lucid reply. As to Mrs. Jack17, yes, she is an intellectual; but her interests don't always parallel my own. By education, she is an accountant and financial manager and her extracurricular interests are the fine arts - not history or philosophy. I doubt there is much "intellectual" thinking behind her religious beliefs; it's too much a part of who she is to ponder. My perception is that the Russian Orthodox Church, for most Russians, is similar to the Hindu religion for Indians; it's a part of their cultural identity and, dare I say, psyche.

jeyla
11-06-2009, 22:44
I can't help but wonder how much mental illness could be cured by rigorous physical exercise and copius amounts of sex.

i ve actually recommended this to many couples that came in for therapy so you re on the right track ;-)

Harvallen
12-06-2009, 13:20
Reminds me of the NIN song "heresy".

YouTube- Nine Inch Nails - Heresy

he sewed his eyes shut,
because he is afraid to see,
he tries to tell me,
what I put inside of me,
he's got the answers,
to ease my curiosity,
he dreamed a God up,
and called it Christianity.

God is dead,
and no one cares,
if there is a hell,
I'll see you there.

he flexed his muscles,
to keep his flock of sheep in line,
he made a virus,
that would kill off all the swine,
his perfect kingdom,
of killing, suffering and pain.
demands devotion,
atrocities done in his name.

God is dead,
and no one cares,
if there is a hell,
I'll see you there,
your God is dead,
and no one cares,
if there is a hell,
I'll see you there.

God is dead,
and no on cares,
if there is a hell,
I'll see you there,
your God is dead,
and no one cares,
(drowning in his own hypocrisy)
if there is a hell,
I'll see you there,
(burning with your God in humility)

Looks like Trent Reznor has seen his fair share of fire and brimstone priests, lol.

rusmeister
12-06-2009, 14:45
Rusmeister, thanks, as always for your very lucid reply. As to Mrs. Jack17, yes, she is an intellectual; but her interests don't always parallel my own. By education, she is an accountant and financial manager and her extracurricular interests are the fine arts - not history or philosophy. I doubt there is much "intellectual" thinking behind her religious beliefs; it's too much a part of who she is to ponder. My perception is that the Russian Orthodox Church, for most Russians, is similar to the Hindu religion for Indians; it's a part of their cultural identity and, dare I say, psyche.

While I would not deny your perception (certainly you perceive it among those you deal with), it is most certainly not my experience among the Orthodox Christians I know, in Moscow or in the oblast. The ones I know ponder it to greater or lesser extents - it is a conscious part of their lives, and not simply who they are in the sense that they are Russians or we are Americans (or English, or Scots, etc.) For most it is a conscious choice they made as adults to accept, and therefore think about it seriously, and it does place them (us) at odds with secular society and are thus forced to some kind of apologetics, again, to varying degrees.

Feel free to tell your wife that I'm 'out there' - not to "raise her hopes" so much as merely to pique her intellectual curiosity towards western thought (by which I mean the idea that Orthodox Christians may also be Westerners...) :) She might eventually be interested in engaging with thought that interests you - although I'll admit, sadly, that my wife does not.

PS - Did you check out the Fr Victor entry on Wikipedia? Interesting, eh what?

Korotky Gennady
13-06-2009, 04:29
what you are exhibiting is a number of things, all of them primitive ego defense mechanisms: denial, projection and resistance, enjoy, i have no doubt that rationalization and regression are all on their way :-)



They tought you with this sh..tty terms in uni or what ?

You, psychologists, are the ones who need medical care and hard psychothrofic treatment to clean out this sh..t from your sick heads and to cure your sick egos.




And no denial and no resistance please..


I saw many psychologists in my life and all of them were mentally ill very much.

Qdos
13-06-2009, 04:48
I can't help but wonder how much mental illness could be cured by rigorous physical exercise and copius amounts of sex.

Why not satisfy your own curiosity; book yourself into a gym for a good workout, and then find a street hooker (or get your Indian friend to relieve you Jack, afterall you have said your views on homosexuality are very relaxed... so I'm sure you'd have no problems with that...eh?)

Then let us know how your condition improves afterwards... :10220:

Korotky Gennady
13-06-2009, 04:58
get your Indian friend to relieve you Jack, afterall you have said your views on homosexuality are very relaxed... so I'm sure you'd have no problems with that...eh?)
:Hmm... but for doing that Jack's indian friend should be a homosexual one also.


But anyway it's better to spend money on hookers than to spend it on psychologists.

Qdos
13-06-2009, 12:24
Hmm... but for doing that Jack's indian friend should be a homosexual one also.

I'm sure for a handful of rupees extra... :ok:


But anyway it's better to spend money on hookers than to spend it on psychologists.

Not sure about this, I've never needed either, but it's an interesting thought! :cool:

jeyla
14-06-2009, 21:57
They tought you with this sh..tty terms in uni or what ?



yes, but one can usually spell or at least spell check by the time one goes to university...




You, psychologists, are the ones who need medical care and hard psychothrofic treatment to clean out this sh..t from your sick heads and to cure your sick egos.

And no denial and no resistance please..


I saw many psychologists in my life and all of them were mentally ill very much.



first of all it's psychotropic; second of all, by being so vehemently opposed to and dismissive of psychology, you are in fact exhibiting the aforementioned defense mechanisms of your own ego... more importantly, judging by the self righteousness of this passage, you are far too gone to benefit from anything psychotherapy has to offer... at this point my professional recommendation would be :10241:

this may have been harsh... i tend to take it to heart when people diss my profession without knowing the first thing about it... i am sorry... for your ignorance ;-)

MickeyTong
14-06-2009, 22:19
this may have been harsh... i tend to take it to heart when people diss my profession without knowing the first thing about it... i am sorry... for your ignorance ;-)

Hostility and ridicule are applied to mental health professionals almost as much as they are directed towards people with mental health problems.

Jeyla, you and I feel comfortable on territory which most people fear :beerbros:

Qdos
14-06-2009, 22:33
People who've seen friends or family affected by psychological issues aren't phobic about those with MHP's either; but it certainly is mal-perceived by a huge majority of the general public.

Patient with a mental health problem = psychopathic axe murderer. Simple :)

MickeyTong
14-06-2009, 22:43
People who've seen friends or family affected by psychological issues aren't phobic about those with MHP's either; but it certainly is mal-perceived by a huge majority of the general public.

Patient with a mental health problem = psychopathic axe murderer. Simple :)


Indeed yes.
Most people avoid thinking of the reality that our brain is an organ just like any other. "There but for the Grace of God, go I" is applied to people with kidney problems, heart problems, gut problems, etc, but not to those whose brain is malfunctioning.
Sadly, many people lose friends if they lose their minds.

Qdos
14-06-2009, 22:52
Sadly, many people lose friends if they lose their minds.

And far more besides sometimes... the public badly need educating... :beerbros:

MickeyTong
14-06-2009, 22:58
Yes they do. But they think they already know.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 04:05
Sadly, many people lose friends if they lose their minds.Nope. It's good.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 04:10
And far more besides sometimes...
:beerbros:If you have lost something, you have found something also... At once you have found a lot of psychologists who need your money very much and these psychologists will be your true friends.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 04:14
"There but for the Grace of God, go I" is applied to people with kidney problems, heart problems, gut problems, etc,

but not to those whose brain is malfunctioning.

Sadly, many people lose friends if they lose their minds.Mind isn't brain.


A little child has brain, but she (or he) hasn't mind.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 04:27
yes, but one can usually spell or at least spell check by the time one goes to university...;-) spell check ?






first of all it's psychotropic; second of all, by being so vehemently opposed to and dismissive of psychology, you are in fact exhibiting the aforementioned defense mechanisms of your own ego... more importantly, judging by the self righteousness of this passage, you are far too gone to benefit from anything psychotherapy has to offer... at this point my professional recommendation would be :10241:

this may have been harsh... i tend to take it to heart when people diss my profession without knowing the first thing about it... i am sorry... for your ignorance ;-)My professional recommendations to you is to change your profession as fast as you can becoz you can do many bad things to your patients with the such level of general ignorance that you demonstrate here... and the such complex of superiority which you have too.

In fact you are very ignorant and dangerous person for your would-be patients.

jeyla
15-06-2009, 11:45
seeing how you have nothing of substance or insight to contribute to the discussion, i will leave you to your intellectual handicap :5387:

jeyla
15-06-2009, 12:36
what you and qdos have to say about psychotherapy means a lot to me: being a therapist anywhere is fraught with prejudice, but moving here has really been a professional challenge! it's not so much the ignorance that bothers me, i am sure that we are all ignorant in our own ways, it is this steadfast insistence that there can be no other view, no other possibility, no other mindset!

here they prefer to pop pills like tic tacs and dismiss psychotherapy as psychobabble just because they are too scared to look beneath the surface and to face the fact that they might in fact need it! they see it as a con, a scheme to rob people of their money, but how many "doctors" here prescribe the pills because they have been bribed by the pharmaceutical companies to do so? and i have literally seen this happen!

and what about the side effects of such pharmacological, and thereby socially approved, approaches?? i had a patient who developed a brain tumor because of wrongly prescribed medication, which had to be surgically removed!

here people hold on to their prejudice as if it was their most prized possession! they don't want to "move" in psychotherapeutic terms and they most certainly don't want to be moved in any way! it is much safer to hide behind the newly acquired bourgeois values in fear of any kind of awareness of either themselves or the world...

sorry this was so lengthy, it's kind of a sensitive spot, i haven't lived in moscow for 15 years so the readjustment is still a process... and my favorite solution to acculturative stress is of course :10518:

MissAnnElk
15-06-2009, 13:07
i am sure that we are all ignorant in our own ways, it is this steadfast insistence that there can be no other view, no other possibility, no other mindset!

It's funny to me how different cultures view these things.

In Buenos Aires EVERYONE has a therapist. In fact, you are looked upon strangely if you do NOT. "What's wrong with you? Don't you want to improve?" they ask.

One friend of mine had TWO: she went to the second one to talk about how to manage her relationship with the first one.

I thought that was a bit over the top.

Then I moved to Central Europe. Someone asked me for a recommendation for an English-speaking shrink. I asked some medical professionals I knew and the reply was basically, "We don't really do that here . . . tell your friend to try having a coffee with her girlfriends."

This, right next door to Vienna, too! I thought it was so interesting that Freud didn't make it to the border.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 13:17
what you and qdos have to say about psychotherapy means a lot to me... :10518:

So who gets the first free session, MickeyTong or me? :suspect:

I think his needs may be greater than mine, doing the job he does... :mooooh:

Harvallen
15-06-2009, 13:52
spell check ?




My professional recommendations to you is to change your profession as fast as you can becoz you can do many bad things to your patients with the such level of general ignorance that you demonstrate here... and the such complex of superiority which you have too.

In fact you are very ignorant and dangerous person for your would-be patients.

Take it easy there, Tom Cruise. :D

Willy
15-06-2009, 13:58
Take it easy there, Tom Cruise. :D



I see you've met our nut case.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 14:00
I see you've met our nut case.

Well, there are actually several resident nutcases in truth... :devil:

Willy
15-06-2009, 14:09
Well, there are actually several resident nutcases in truth... :devil:


Hey, I'm a sex maniac I'm not a nut case.

MickeyTong
15-06-2009, 15:30
Mind isn't brain.


A little child has brain, but she (or he) hasn't mind.

Indeed, mind is not brain. But mind cannot function properly without a fully developed and correctly functioning, intact brain.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 16:12
Maybe Korotky meant this... :mooooh:

YouTube- Headless Chicken Lives

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 18:43
This, right next door to Vienna, too! I thought it was so interesting that Freud didn't make it to the border.Amanda, I'm sorry but doctor Freud was an old idiot who thought that all little boys want... just like Freud himself did... to f..ck their mother and are jelous to their dads about this thing.

Even Erih Fromm laught over this Freud's "theory"...

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 18:44
Maybe Korotky meant this... :mooooh:

YouTube - Headless Chicken Lives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATz3AdbjyRI)Qdos, I meant many things.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 18:49
Indeed, mind is not brain. But mind cannot function properly without a fully developed and correctly functioning, intact brain.No doubts.


But if mind isn't brain, it could be that man can have well functioning brain but his mind can be in hell at the same time.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 18:51
Hey, I'm a sex maniacEverybody know it here.

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 19:21
here people hold on to their prejudice as if it was their most prized possession!
:It's just your case.

One time I was on the lecture in uni... on the Psychology Faculty :D and the lector (the famous russian psychoanalyst) tought his students there how they should pull money from their patients pockets and what could be the best tactics for that.

When young psychologists graduate from university, at once they start to do hunting for clients to get back money they pay for their education there.




it is much safer to hide behind the newly acquired bourgeois values in fear of any kind of awareness of either themselves or the world...


::) It's clear why it's just so... It's so becoz all people you spoke to were representatives of russian bourgeoisie and russian new bureaucratic clans. No one russian worker or peasant never gets thought in his head to go to the psychoanalyst or to the psychotherapist.

The psychoanalys itself was created by doctor Freud to amuse the bored bourgeois Vienna's madams and in order to bring a little bit of amusement in their senseless lifes.

Qdos
15-06-2009, 19:42
Five consecutive posts, and a touch of editing, to make your point? :devil:

I bet there's a link there to a Compulsive Behavioural Disorder... :hooray:

Korotky Gennady
15-06-2009, 19:53
Five consecutive posts, and a touch of editing, to make your point? :devil:

I bet there's a link there to a Compulsive Behavioural Disorder... :hooray:No Compulsive Behavioural Syndrome in me... doc.

I just corrected my spelling..

MickeyTong
15-06-2009, 20:02
The psychoanalys itself was created by doctor Freud to amuse the bored bourgeois Vienna's madams and in order to bring a little bit of amusement in their senseless lifes.

Personally, I'd avoid anyone who is doctrinaire in his/her style of therapy.

is4fun
15-06-2009, 20:54
They tought you with this sh..tty terms in uni or what ?

You, psychologists, are the ones who need medical care and hard psychothrofic treatment to clean out this sh..t from your sick heads and to cure your sick egos.




And no denial and no resistance please..


I saw many psychologists in my life and all of them were mentally ill very much.

I can agree with your gripe to some extent as these people have yielded way too much power in their lives of condemning people to life-long confinement with or without a psycho-babble explanation, which was either not understood, readily accepted or a convenient tool of confinement for the committed. Especially, say 40 years ago in the west. I could have had my mother committed if I had the signature of a few other relatives to put her away until she died in a mental hospital. Utilizing mental illness as an excuse to lock someone up was rather common and convenient. Not really much different (excuse me, EXACTLY) in how religion was used to burn witches or heretic inconveniences in the past. This was no different in the USSR. So, understandably trust may be a long way off. I have always been convinced it is an actual science if utilized without the interference of those who use it for their own gains, however. As I always need some reasonable explanation to guide me in the right direction. As for rusmeister’s comments? A little dose of Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell may help you gather your wits and experience a life of real learning.

MickeyTong
15-06-2009, 22:29
YouTube- Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 1
YouTube- Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God - Part 2

jeyla
15-06-2009, 23:25
One time I was on the lecture in uni... on the Psychology Faculty :D and the lector (the famous russian psychoanalyst) tought his students there how they should pull money from their patients pockets and what could be the best tactics for that.

that is very sad and very true, i have seen it happen here a lot but you cannot automatically expand this reality to the rest of the mental health profession!!!



all people you spoke to were representatives of russian bourgeoisie and russian new bureaucratic clans. No one russian worker or peasant never gets thought in his head to go to the psychoanalyst or to the psychotherapist.

that would be the prejudice and the lack of education... for these same reasons they don't go to the dentist or to the doctor and wind up with children at the tender age of 12 or 13... not exactly something to be proud of... and don't forget the aids stats on russia...


The psychoanalys itself was created by doctor Freud to amuse the bored bourgeois Vienna's madams and in order to bring a little bit of amusement in their senseless lifes.

freud has got to be the single most misinterpreted mind in history... i suppose it's easy enough to do... we are all quick to judge that which scares us... and only a single witted fool would actually believe that freud literally meant that the child wants to sleep with the mother!!! that's just sick and says more about the people who believe it than it does about freudian theory of psychoanalysis

Korotky Gennady
16-06-2009, 00:49
freud has got to be the single most misinterpreted mind in history... i suppose it's easy enough to do... we are all quick to judge that which scares us... and only a single witted fool would actually believe that freud literally meant that the child wants to sleep with the mother!!! that's just sick and says more about the people who believe it than it does about freudian theory of psychoanalysis

" Theory of the Oedipus complex

The classical paradigm in a (male) child's psychological coming-of-age is to first select the mother as the object of libidinal investment. This however is expected to arouse the father's anger, and the infant surmises that the most probable outcome of this would be castration. ( !!!)

Although Freud devoted most of his early literature to the Oedipus complex in males, by 1931 he was arguing that females do experience an Oedipus complex, and that in the case of females, incestuous desires are initially homosexual desires towards the mothers. ( !!!)


The female Oedipus complex

Freud's writings on the Oedipus complex in females date primarily from his later writings, of the 1920s and 1930s. He believed that Oedipal wishes in females are initially expressions of homosexual desire for the mother. ( !!!)

In 1925, he raised the question of how females later abandon this desire for their mother, and shift their sexual desires to their father (Appignanesisi & Forrester, 1992). (!!!)

Freud believed that this stems from their disappointment in discovery that they themselves lack a penis. (!!!)


Freud's final comments on female sexuality occurred in his "New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis" in 1933 (Slipp, 1993) and deal with the different effects of penis envy and castration anxiety. (!!!) " ( From the english version of Wiki )


:D no comments



We're All Mad Here...You and your western "doctor" Freud are.

Me ? I am not.

And not be envious as your doctor tought you that I have penis. :D


" According to Freud, a girl, like a boy, is originally attached to the mother figure. However, during the phallic stage, when she discovers that she lacks a penis, she becomes libidinally attached to the father figure, and imagines that she will become pregnant by him, all the while becoming more hostile toward her mother.

Freud attributes the character of this developmental stage in girls to the idea of "penis envy", where a girl is envious of the male penis. According to the theory, this penis envy leads to resentment towards the mother figure, who is believed to have caused the girl's "castration." (from Wiki )

MickeyTong
16-06-2009, 01:03
If you read Jung you will understand that these libidinous attachments are symbolic.


No, don't read Jung: he was a crap writer.

Try anything by Edward Whitmont.... Return of the Goddess is particularly good.

Qdos
16-06-2009, 04:18
Freud believed that this stems from their disappointment in discovery that they themselves lack a penis. (!!!)

Gotta be totally honest here. If I suddenly found that I was deprived of mine I'd be pretty busted up about it too... :jester:

rusmeister
16-06-2009, 13:03
It's funny to me how different cultures view these things.

In Buenos Aires EVERYONE has a therapist. In fact, you are looked upon strangely if you do NOT. "What's wrong with you? Don't you want to improve?" they ask.

One friend of mine had TWO: she went to the second one to talk about how to manage her relationship with the first one.

I thought that was a bit over the top.

Then I moved to Central Europe. Someone asked me for a recommendation for an English-speaking shrink. I asked some medical professionals I knew and the reply was basically, "We don't really do that here . . . tell your friend to try having a coffee with her girlfriends."

This, right next door to Vienna, too! I thought it was so interesting that Freud didn't make it to the border.

The acceptance or denial of psychotherapy depends upon your worldview. personally, I by-and-large reject it, above all, because I reject Freud's worldview. I think countries where Orthodoxy has always had a foothold have more sense, literally - of the good old-fashioned common kind, than to really take PT seriously, and it is interesting that the decline of common sense and the rise of psychotherapy and public education all coincide. In my considered opinion, therapy is, in most cases, simply something that most people have replaced two vital institutions with - friends and priests. Granted that there IS such a thing as genuine mental illness - only in most cases, people are more normal than they think.

PBS has a fascinating program, online, free, with video or just transcripts, non-partisan, focusing on Freud and Lewis. It doesn't pretend to offer a final answer, and I think it would be great to discuss it here. If anyone agrees, let me know - I'll join that thread.
The Question of God | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/)
Click on "The program" and then "The complete program" to get to the heart of it quickly.

jeyla
16-06-2009, 16:22
clearly the meaning of symbolism is lost on you altogether... and of course wiki is such a solid primary source... you must have forgotten to put your special thinking cap on when you googled your way around psychoanalysis :11033:

you don't have to like it or believe in it or even give it a single thought in any given day! but as a human being with what i am still hopeful are functioning brain cells, you cannot, by logic, dismiss every single psychotherapeutic claim completely!!! it would be statistically impossible for every single psychologist to have been wrong every single time and about ever single thing!

mental illness is very real and no amount of friends or priests will save you from e.g. bipolar disorder! chances are they will all eventually leave you to your misery unless you get some professional help and start taking your meds...

very few people are genuinely interested in any kind of awareness or insight into who and what they are and so be it! if they are happy well adjusted and well functioning adults, then it is really none of my business... but you have no right to insist on the same shallow little pond of a mindset for everyone else... why is it so difficult for some people to be at the very least respectful of the fact that there are other world views??

you know what, this is useless... if you have no understanding, but more importantly no desire to even try and understand, then this conversation carries very little promise... we will just go round and round trading quotes and silly smilies

oh and all therapy sessions are free for qdos because i just think he'd be so much fun as a patient :beerbros: and mickey doesn't need my help although i am still very sad that he's not practicing here :cry:

Qdos
16-06-2009, 17:44
Therapy sessions are free for qdos because i just think he'd be so much fun as a patient :beerbros:

You might be biting off more than you can chew... :whisper::trampoline:

rusmeister
16-06-2009, 21:23
clearly the meaning of symbolism is lost on you altogether... and of course wiki is such a solid primary source... you must have forgotten to put your special thinking cap on when you googled your way around psychoanalysis :11033:

you don't have to like it or believe in it or even give it a single thought in any given day! but as a human being with what i am still hopeful are functioning brain cells, you cannot, by logic, dismiss every single psychotherapeutic claim completely!!! it would be statistically impossible for every single psychologist to have been wrong every single time and about ever single thing!

mental illness is very real and no amount of friends or priests will save you from e.g. bipolar disorder! chances are they will all eventually leave you to your misery unless you get some professional help and start taking your meds...

very few people are genuinely interested in any kind of awareness or insight into who and what they are and so be it! if they are happy well adjusted and well functioning adults, then it is really none of my business... but you have no right to insist on the same shallow little pond of a mindset for everyone else... why is it so difficult for some people to be at the very least respectful of the fact that there are other world views??

you know what, this is useless... if you have no understanding, but more importantly no desire to even try and understand, then this conversation carries very little promise... we will just go round and round trading quotes and silly smilies

oh and all therapy sessions are free for qdos because i just think he'd be so much fun as a patient :beerbros: and mickey doesn't need my help although i am still very sad that he's not practicing here :cry:

I'm not sure how 'the meaning of symbolism is lost on me'. I have a great appreciation for symbolism, as I do for genuine mental illness (this is why I said "by-and-large", rather than "completely"). I submit that (now that there is a given industry) it is in the best interests of that industry to magnify its necessity, though.

The point is that religion and philosophy do in fact, to varying degrees, claim to offer awareness or insight into who and what people are, and traditional Christianity (as a good example; most specifically Orthodoxy) explains why most of us, in most cases, are not happy and well-adjusted, and I find that those explanations fall far more on the right side of Occam's razor than those offered by Freud and his followers.

If we have found that a worldview is actually the truth - the actual description of the nature of the universe, why should we respect "views" which turn out to not be true - to actually be false? Why should I respect the view that 2+2=5?

MickeyTong
16-06-2009, 21:42
Can I just say, again, that Freud is not the be-all and end-all of the mental health "industry". There are very few doctrinaire Freudians working in the field (except, maybe, Argentina).
I'm not at all surprised that anyone reading Freud should be discouraged from looking any further.

is4fun
16-06-2009, 22:03
Can I just say, again, that Freud is not the be-all and end-all of the mental health "industry". There are very few doctrinaire Freudians working in the field (except, maybe, Argentina).
I'm not at all surprised that anyone reading Freud should be discouraged from looking any further.

MT can you possibly explain the story of Phylius Page? My memory may be waaaay wrong, however, it was a long time ago when I read about this story. Was he indeed the actual specimen and the founder of psychology as real science? (he had a portion of his frontal skull removed in an accident) Please forgive me if the spelling of the name is wrong...

Good post regarding the theory that God only exists in the mind through an evolutionary process. Pretty hard thing to prove, however, but better than the alternative. LOL :)

MickeyTong
16-06-2009, 22:36
MT can you possibly explain the story of Phylius Page? My memory may be waaaay wrong, however, it was a long time ago when I read about this story. Was he indeed the actual specimen and the founder of psychology as real science? (he had a portion of his frontal skull removed in an accident) Please forgive me if the spelling of the name is wrong...

Phineas Gage, a railway worker whose job was to pack explosives into a drilled hole, using a metal pole. Well, one day he goofed and the thing blew up in his face, sending the pole through his cheek and out the top of his head and causing damage to his frontal lobes.
His case lead to the understanding that different areas of the brain process different aspects of being a human, because Gage's personality changed after the accident: he had been an easy-going, placid, steady worker but became short-tempered, volatile and irresponsible.

Phineas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Phineas_Gage_GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17_Unretouched_Color_Cropped.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Phineas_Gage_GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17_Unretouched_Color_Cropped.jpg/220px-Phineas_Gage_GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17_Unretouched_Color_Cropped.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8c/Phineas_Gage_GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17_Unretouched_Color_Cropped.jpg/220px-Phineas_Gage_GageMillerPhoto2010-02-17_Unretouched_Color_Cropped.jpg

Scary thought that who we are, what we believe and what we value all depends on the arrangement and functioning of the spongy stuff in our heads.

is4fun
16-06-2009, 22:42
Phineas Gage, a railway worker whose job was to pack explosives into a drilled hole, using a metal pole. Well, one day he goofed and the thing blew up in his face, sending the pole through his cheek and out the top of his head and causing damage to his frontal lobes.
His case lead to the understanding that different areas of the brain process different aspects of being a human, because Gage's personality changed after the accident: he had been an easy-going, placid, steady worker but became short-tempered, volatile and irresponsible.

Phineas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)

Scary thought that who we are, what we believe and what we value all depends on the arrangement and functioning of the spongy stuff in our heads.

I find it scarier that people think otherwise. :(

Thank you for the response as it had been over 30 years since I last heard about Mr. Phineas Gage. There was no way I could have got the spelling correct. LOL

rusmeister
17-06-2009, 21:03
Can I just say, again, that Freud is not the be-all and end-all of the mental health "industry". There are very few doctrinaire Freudians working in the field (except, maybe, Argentina).
I'm not at all surprised that anyone reading Freud should be discouraged from looking any further.
That is a good point, of course, and I readily acknowledge that by no means all of it is quackery. I guess what I really blast is Freudian thinking.

I stand by my view that much (though not all once again) of psycho- and similar mental therapies, for many, is merely a substitute for the ancient offices of priests and friends.

Matt24
17-06-2009, 23:15
he had been an easy-going, placid, steady worker but became short-tempered, volatile and irresponsible.

Maybe if they'd let him keep the stick...

MickeyTong
17-06-2009, 23:54
Maybe if they'd let him keep the stick...
It was over 1 metre long and he found it awkward putting on his pullover.

jeyla
18-06-2009, 01:33
I'm not sure how 'the meaning of symbolism is lost on me'. I have a great appreciation for symbolism, as I do for genuine mental illness (this is why I said "by-and-large", rather than "completely"). I submit that (now that there is a given industry) it is in the best interests of that industry to magnify its necessity, though.

The point is that religion and philosophy do in fact, to varying degrees, claim to offer awareness or insight into who and what people are, and traditional Christianity (as a good example; most specifically Orthodoxy) explains why most of us, in most cases, are not happy and well-adjusted, and I find that those explanations fall far more on the right side of Occam's razor than those offered by Freud and his followers.

If we have found that a worldview is actually the truth - the actual description of the nature of the universe, why should we respect "views" which turn out to not be true - to actually be false? Why should I respect the view that 2+2=5?

im not sure how this happened but my post was a reply to korotky gennady who feels that psychotherapy is a purely western ailment brought on by boredom and too much money to spend and so are all mental health problems - apparently russian peasants are immune to schizophrenia...

it was not his disagreement that i found offensive, but his prejudice against all things therapy, whereas what you have to say is well argued and makes sense, whether or not we agree with each other on all things is irrelevant but i do apologize for the mix up...

as for freud or any other doctrinaire thinker (to borrow MT's term) you just have to look at it from the perspective of his sociohistorical context - at the time it was valid but with time and with new breakthroughs and discoveries, other views and theories came into the light that better reflect our world as opposed to freud's... it's the order of things and we all try to find our place in it - to me personally, existentialism makes more far sense than say pure behaviorism, but i cannot dispute the fact that pavlov's dogs salivated at the bell...

i don't think there are too many classical freudians practicing today - it just wouldn't work because his classical theory no longer applies to our reality the way it used to - which is why we now have all the different kinds of approaches, psychodynamic being one of them, and the idea of therapeutic eclecticism... he nonetheless remains an important part of the history of therapeutic thought and without his ideas, many others would not have come into play at all...

as for "truth" or the possibility of finding it (objective discovery of the universe) they are extremely illusive to me - i just don't think its possible but as a species we are indeed obsessed with it... just think of geometry (as a descriptor of physical space) what euclid had to say was held true for centuries and is still taught at school whereas einstein's theory of relativity made it all, well, relative (dependent on the force of the gravitational field)

who knows what we'll discover tomorrow? but then again with relativists everything is relative, even themselves so i don't know, i guess you can never "win" when it comes to philosophy ;-)

Korotky Gennady
18-06-2009, 03:13
First of all I never said that Freud is a frauder and of course I appreciate the general scientific intentions of Freud and his followers. And I appreciate very high his battle against christiany and judaism.

Nevertheless I'm sure the psychotherapy is fraudery in the most cases when it have been applied to. And I don't believe that a psychotherapist can do something good to his (her) client. He can help his patient only in the case if his patient has bad brain functioning as Mickey noted in one of his previous posts... that's all. I meant that doctor can give his patient some chemical sh..t which makes neurons work more well.


Really how can you, jeyla, help your patients ?... what do you know about life that you dare explain them what is wrong in their existence ? So all psychotherapy isn't a good thing.

The second thing you wrote " my post was a reply to korotky gennady who feels that psychotherapy is a purely western ailment brought on by boredom and too much money to spend and so are all mental health problems - apparently russian peasants are immune to schizophrenia... " But it's wrong statement I never wrote that russian workers or russian peasants are immune to schizophrenia... But schizophrenia can't be treated with psychotherapy and Freud never tried to cure schizophrenics. In fact in USSR it was even strictly forbidden to apply psychotherapy towards schizophrenics... becoz their state of mind can worsen from it.


Of course you can tell your patients the fables you were taught with in uni...

rusmeister
18-06-2009, 08:19
im not sure how this happened but my post was a reply to korotky gennady who feels that psychotherapy is a purely western ailment brought on by boredom and too much money to spend and so are all mental health problems - apparently russian peasants are immune to schizophrenia...

it was not his disagreement that i found offensive, but his prejudice against all things therapy, whereas what you have to say is well argued and makes sense, whether or not we agree with each other on all things is irrelevant but i do apologize for the mix up...

as for freud or any other doctrinaire thinker (to borrow MT's term) you just have to look at it from the perspective of his sociohistorical context - at the time it was valid but with time and with new breakthroughs and discoveries, other views and theories came into the light that better reflect our world as opposed to freud's... it's the order of things and we all try to find our place in it - to me personally, existentialism makes more far sense than say pure behaviorism, but i cannot dispute the fact that pavlov's dogs salivated at the bell...

i don't think there are too many classical freudians practicing today - it just wouldn't work because his classical theory no longer applies to our reality the way it used to - which is why we now have all the different kinds of approaches, psychodynamic being one of them, and the idea of therapeutic eclecticism... he nonetheless remains an important part of the history of therapeutic thought and without his ideas, many others would not have come into play at all...

as for "truth" or the possibility of finding it (objective discovery of the universe) they are extremely illusive to me - i just don't think its possible but as a species we are indeed obsessed with it... just think of geometry (as a descriptor of physical space) what euclid had to say was held true for centuries and is still taught at school whereas einstein's theory of relativity made it all, well, relative (dependent on the force of the gravitational field)

who knows what we'll discover tomorrow? but then again with relativists everything is relative, even themselves so i don't know, i guess you can never "win" when it comes to philosophy ;-)

Thanks, Jeyla!
(A little courtesy goes a long way! :) )
First, I would say, regarding relativism - that IS the question. What IS truth?
The modern, post-enlightenment approach is to essentially deny truth -at the very least by claiming that it is personal and individual; that it does not and cannot reflect a reality that also affects others. I'd say you CAN win - if you come to a definite conclusion about that (and if it is the right conclusion). There is no logical connection between the many and contradictory claims of truth and the (false) conclusion that 'therefore, there is no truth'.

I would highly recommend Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/)" (no direct connection to Orthodox Christianity - he speaks of orthodoxy in the sense of "what happens to actually be right and true); especially chapter 3 -although it seems crazy to try to limit the recommendation to one chapter. It offers direct challenge to and examination of the modern assault on truth. (Plus, I learned much of my rather recently-acquired thinking skills from reading Chesterton and Lewis - esp the former - the danger is that he makes you think, and thoughts are dangerous...)


If I may tweak one of your comments a little...


as for freud or any other doctrinaire thinker (to borrow MT's term) you just have to look at it from the perspective of his sociohistorical context - at the time it was valid but with time and with new breakthroughs and discoveries, other views and theories came into the light that better reflect our world as opposed to freud's... it's the order of things and we all try to find our place in it - to me personally, existentialism makes more far sense than say pure behaviorism, but i cannot dispute the fact that pavlov's dogs salivated at the bell...

This seems to imply that something is true in one age and not in another ("valid at the time"), whereas it would seem that your intent is to say that something is closer to (conforms better to) the true nature of man and/or the universe. The latter makes far more sense but I don't want to put words in your mouth there. Probably it's the definition of what exactly "valid" means. Words are useless unless we share common definitions.

Also, a 'breakthrough' based on a theory that turned out to not ultimately reflect the truth would itself be founded on incorrect understanding. Thus, the question of truth - the correct understanding of the true nature of the universe, becomes all-important, and all learning, to be "valid" - as I understand the word, as a synonym for true - must be predicated on it. (This is why the term 'modern' is, for me, essentially an insult - because it is not predicated on truth, but only on "points of view".) Even linguistically, "modern" is from "moda" - which is, after all, only passing fashion, which is what modern thought mostly is, which is why, odd as it may seem, I agree with Gena on this one, despite his frantic anti-God attitudes, even if his arguments do not seem well-based.

Or, as Lewis put it:
"That which is not eternal is eternally out of date."

robertmf
18-06-2009, 16:53
... If we have found that a worldview is actually the truth - the actual description of the nature of the universe, why should we respect "views" which turn out to not be true - to actually be false? Why should I respect the view that 2+2=5?

Perhaps 'the universe' is all in your head ... with our sense of "reality" depending, literally, on observation.

The universe is in your head - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/16/1966953.aspx)


... Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.

"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. "Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it - or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private - furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"
In Search Of Schroedinger's Cat (esp. the preface and prologue)

rusmeister
18-06-2009, 17:24
Perhaps 'the universe' is all in your head ... with our sense of "reality" depending, literally, on observation.

The universe is in your head - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/16/1966953.aspx)


... Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.

"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. "Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it - or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private - furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!"
In Search Of Schroedinger's Cat (esp. the preface and prologue)

A direct response from the most common -sensical man who ever lived:
Philosophy for the Schoolroom (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/philosophy.html)

What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking. And it has this special and positive point about it, that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.

Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this--that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism.

Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad. All of us believe in St. Paul's Cathedral; most of us believe in St. Paul. But let us clearly realize this fact, that we do believe in a number of things which are part of our existence, but which cannot be demonstrated. Leave religion for the moment wholly out of the question. All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable. Let us state them roughly.

1. Every sane man believes that the world around him and the people in it are real, and not his own delusion or dream. No man starts burning London in the belief that his servant will soon wake him for breakfast. But that I, at any given moment, am not in a dream, is unproved and unprovable. That anything exists except myself is unproved and unprovable.

2. All sane men believe that this world not only exists, but matters. Every man believes there is a sort of obligation on us to interest ourselves in this vision or panorama of life. He would think a man wrong who said, "I did not ask for this farce and it bores me. I am aware that an old lady is being murdered down-stairs, but I am going to sleep." That there is any such duty to improve the things we did not make is a thing unproved and unprovable.

3. All sane men believe that there is such a thing as a self, or ego, which is continuous. There is no inch of my brain matter the same as it was ten years ago. But if I have saved a man in battle ten years ago, I am proud; if I have run away, I am ashamed. That there is such a paramount "I" is unproved and unprovable. But it is more than unproved and unprovable; it is definitely disputed by many metaphysicians.

4. Lastly, most sane men believe, and all sane men in practice assume, that they have a power of choice and responsibility for action.

Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought.



Anyone who can't accept those principles is mentally unhealthy - which is what 'insane' means.

jeyla
18-06-2009, 23:26
i was thinking of validity in statistical terms but i do agree with you that what we mean by the words we use is essential to what we are trying to convey: my point was that in freud's time (e.g.) repressed sexuality was a big theme, whereas now sexuality is far more freely expressed and experienced

as for being right and wrong - i have a tendency to think in research terms - i've done my share... if we come up with a great idea, hypothesize it and test it, even if it turns out completely false (or at least statistically insignificant) that tells us something new, brings us closer to whatever it is we want to discover... it's like a learning experience by negation - in research you never seek to prove your experimental hypothesis, you try to disprove the null hypothesis so either way, you learn something new - even if it means learning that you were wrong

i've actually been thinking about what you said about the original role of priests and friends... your words really stayed with me for the day and i have to admit that the what we all want in our priests and our friends, would go a very long way to help us deal with our stress and our problems, should we actually get it in real life as much as we'd like...

the sad part is that it is the corruption (moral and otherwise) in the religious circles and the increasingly duplicitous surface quality of many friendships that end up driving people into therapy... i feel that we changed a lot and not necessarily for the better: we value different things now and we are driven by much more material concerns...

this is by no means universal, but i see it happening more and more - even if we look to the media - the role models it provides for our children are not exactly the very healthy kind!!! i had 12 year old girls obsessing with being thin and with having the "right" clothes and the "right" gadgets and oh yes, having the "right" friends!!! and a 12 year old with an eating disorder would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago... it's heartbreaking to me that children as young as 3 and 4 get bullied at preschool!

to me, it is above all a lack of solid values and a proper belief system - not necessarily a religious, but a personal one... the world is becoming plastic to me, and for a lot of the kids growing up in it, it is the only way of being that they know... that's why this question of awareness and insight is so crucial - i fear that too many of us will one day realize that we wasted our lives on meaningless obsessions and chasing ephemeral happiness defined in socially imposed terms of money and power - i have seen how this "race" ends for many people - they end up summarizing their lives as "disappointing" in one way or another... and it's not like we get a 2nd chance!

robertmf
19-06-2009, 00:51
Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought.


:respect: ahhhhhhhhhh but is this 'human free thought' in a deterministic or nondeterministic universe ? Does God play with dice ?

And just who establishes the test for what is mentally unhealthy or sane ? I've heard the definition of "insanity" is repetition.


Anyone who can't accept those principles is mentally unhealthy - which is what 'insane' means.

rusmeister
19-06-2009, 15:36
:respect: ahhhhhhhhhh but is this 'human free thought' in a deterministic or nondeterministic universe ? Does God play with dice ?

And just who establishes the test for what is mentally unhealthy or sane ? I've heard the definition of "insanity" is repetition.

If you read at least the third chapter of Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch3.html) I'll take the discussion with you further. If you don't want to know what I am trying to say, then never mind. It's just that some context is necessary in order for you to be able to understand what I'm saying.

I'm interested in intelligent discussions that actually examine opposing arguments.

rusmeister
20-06-2009, 20:03
A thoughtful post; one that brought up some counter-thoughts of my own...



my point was that in freud's time (e.g.) repressed sexuality was a big theme, whereas now sexuality is far more freely expressed and experienced

Doesn't the word "freely" here seem to imply a necessarily good thing? My view is that it is good choice of word, but with the opposite implications - that being free means being free to go wrong, to go bad, to choose what is worse for us because desire generally overpowers reason. That if things were "less free" in a more religious era, it is because religion had erected fences around those wrong things, protecting us from them and their negative consequences. From that perspective chastity - whether it be absolute virginity or within the context of a traditional monogamous marriage - is a great force for good, and the recipe for the ideal in human existence, rather than "repressive" and "negative". I shouldn't have to say anything about the rather obvious point that the limitations of monogamy provide for stable families, which provide children a more stable environment to grow up in, generally speaking (this is where people hasten to point out the 'benefits' of divorce; the truly awful situations where it might really be called for, which, drearily, turn out to be exceptions rather than the rule) - which also reduces likelihood of need of any kind of therapy.


as for being right and wrong - i have a tendency to think in research terms - i've done my share... if we come up with a great idea, hypothesize it and test it, even if it turns out completely false (or at least statistically insignificant) that tells us something new, brings us closer to whatever it is we want to discover... it's like a learning experience by negation - in research you never seek to prove your experimental hypothesis, you try to disprove the null hypothesis so either way, you learn something new - even if it means learning that you were wrong

Agreed, insofar as individual human knowledge goes. But again, an authority that claimed to get its learning from God, and proved to be consistently right, that really does completely describe the place of man in the universe and the description is consistent with all of your experience, then you have found something that you have nothing to teach and everything to learn from, and you don't need to fear being wrong (unless you actually find something to really be wrong, but when one digs deep enough, one generally finds that it is the limits of one's knowledge that give the appearance of 'wrong' in such cases, and as you point out, it is the individual that is wrong and has something to learn, not the Authority. At any rate, it is indisputably consistent with human limitations.


the sad part is that it is the corruption (moral and otherwise) in the religious circles and the increasingly duplicitous surface quality of many friendships that end up driving people into therapy... i feel that we changed a lot and not necessarily for the better: we value different things now and we are driven by much more material concerns...

I think there is insight in your feeling; ie, you are right that we have changed and not for the better (at least you're not under the common illusion of what Lewis called the myth of 'evolutionism', whose base assumption is that we (humanity) are improving.
But your comment on corruption in religious circles brings up something else for me - my own discovery that the primary - practically the only - thing we learn about religion (especially in public education) is about corruption. We are taught about the great sins, of, say, the Catholic Church, or more recently, teleevangelists, and are taught nothing at all about the saints, or about the incredible great and good things that religion (in the west this meant historic Christianity) has done for mankind. In short, that there is a specific image of organized religion, that, while containing facts, is horribly skewed, and has us thinking subconsciously that organized religion is consistently evil and corrupt, and that indoctrination is performed on us in school and in the media, away from parents, and outside of any church.


this is by no means universal, but i see it happening more and more - even if we look to the media - the role models it provides for our children are not exactly the very healthy kind!!! i had 12 year old girls obsessing with being thin and with having the "right" clothes and the "right" gadgets and oh yes, having the "right" friends!!! and a 12 year old with an eating disorder would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago... it's heartbreaking to me that children as young as 3 and 4 get bullied at preschool!
To me it looks like a society dominated by consumerism and the specific evils of capitalism, unchecked by religion (which, if widely accepted, would muzzle those evils to a great extent). The media just reflects the society, such as it is, and is run by people who are the products of our education system, something that actually took its current form fairly recently, in the 20th century, and was organized by people who wanted...what we have now.


to me, it is above all a lack of solid values and a proper belief system - not necessarily a religious, but a personal one... the world is becoming plastic to me, and for a lot of the kids growing up in it, it is the only way of being that they know... that's why this question of awareness and insight is so crucial - i fear that too many of us will one day realize that we wasted our lives on meaningless obsessions and chasing ephemeral happiness defined in socially imposed terms of money and power - i have seen how this "race" ends for many people - they end up summarizing their lives as "disappointing" in one way or another... and it's not like we get a 2nd chance!


Yes on the lack of solid values and proper belief system - only "proper" must mean "right", one that correctly understands human behavior and prescribes the right "medicine".
However, the system we have today IS personal - and it hasn't solved any of these problems - it has only exacerbated them. So yes, also, on awareness and insight. But those suggest truth - and truth that is not personal (in the sense of individual) but universal - things that are true for everybody. That's the only way you can organize a society that actually eliminates these problems and doesn't create new and worse ones. It's fine to 'celebrate differences' on occasion, but if you don't celebrate what is common regularly, then you don't have a society anymore - just a bunch of isolated individuals.

Hope I don't sound condescending - six years ago I thought the same kinds of things as most people here. I mention names like Lewis and Chesterton because they pointed me in the right direction. I realize that none of my personal experience can be personally convincing - you have to get their on your own in a sense - but I now feel that I see modern fallacies that are widespread, thanks to those teachers, that things are obvious to me now that bewildered me then. Not that I don't still have plenty to learn - but what I have learned has made a lot of things clear, and some of the things you said resonated with that.

robertmf
20-06-2009, 20:16
I'm interested in intelligent discussions that actually examine opposing arguments.

:11513: In that case you need to realize nothing is more of an "opposing argument" than whether the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic. This cannot be "argued" in the true religious philosopy sense. One must pay the dues to have the math.

is4fun
20-06-2009, 21:03
We happen to be no more than a biological blob that has evolved to survive through the chance of environmental change. We are still challenged, however, and thanks to our ability to adapt to these changes some of us are still here today. Life is very simple. We are born through the biological processes of our ancestors and we die leaving a legacy that one day our offspring may survive to flourish and overcome the next catastrophe that is certain to come or be averted. Kind of reminds me of spring when all is fresh after a long cold winter. Our existence is nothing more than chance.

MickeyTong
20-06-2009, 22:00
Rusmeister, your response to Jeyla is exactly what I would expect from any person with an ideology: we have strayed from The Path, become lost in a world built out of our own base nature and can be saved from ourselves only by submitting to True Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Market Forces/Communism/The Third Way/Eckankar/Republicanism/Social Democratism/Freudian Psychoanalysis......etc, etc.
A total system which says "do things this way and you (and others) will be OK".

I agree that your personal experience cannot be convincing. Neither is any hagiography or sectarian/denominational polemic or exposition. I would also agree that, for you, Orthodoxy provides a completeness: in "psychobabble", it is egosyntonic. What I disagree with is your assertion that nothing else does or can expound eternal Truth.

I would also agree with you that an accurate understanding of religion requires an adult mind. A child's sense of morality is very black-and-white (albeit totally egocentric), and they are not capable of the convoluted sophistry with which adults explain their god's "working in mysterious ways that we cannot understand".

Korotky Gennady
21-06-2009, 02:05
. Our existence is nothing more than chance.I agree but we are able to make something good from our existence.

Korotky Gennady
21-06-2009, 02:11
Even linguistically, "modern" is from "moda" - which is, after all, only passing fashion, which is what modern thought mostly is, which is why, odd as it may seem, I agree with Gena on this one, despite his frantic anti-God attitudes, even if his arguments do not seem well-based.

Or, as Lewis put it:
"That which is not eternal is eternally out of date."Dear rusmeister I don't like Christianity so much becoz Christianity don't give all true answers but preasts pretend that they know all answers and that their answers are right. So the majority of preasts are very narrow-minded people...

robertmf
21-06-2009, 04:05
Our existence is nothing more than chance.

Yes. We and all we observe is simply a statistical fluctuation in the quantum vacuum :-)

(no math) Quantum Fluctuation (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm)
(math) Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rusmeister
21-06-2009, 08:33
Rusmeister, your response to Jeyla is exactly what I would expect from any person with an ideology: we have strayed from The Path, become lost in a world built out of our own base nature and can be saved from ourselves only by submitting to True Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Market Forces/Communism/The Third Way/Eckankar/Republicanism/Social Democratism/Freudian Psychoanalysis......etc, etc.
A total system which says "do things this way and you (and others) will be OK".

I agree that your personal experience cannot be convincing. Neither is any hagiography or sectarian/denominational polemic or exposition. I would also agree that, for you, Orthodoxy provides a completeness: in "psychobabble", it is egosyntonic. What I disagree with is your assertion that nothing else does or can expound eternal Truth.

I would also agree with you that an accurate understanding of religion requires an adult mind. A child's sense of morality is very black-and-white (albeit totally egocentric), and they are not capable of the convoluted sophistry with which adults explain their god's "working in mysterious ways that we cannot understand".

Thanks, Mickey.
If Robert's determinism were true, then your expectation is largely a product of forces that shaped you and has no special value in terms of your (individual) thought. It, simply put, just happens to be the (random) way you were formed.

Obviously, I say that determinism is nonsense and the deepest expressions of it are merely complex sophistry which avoid simple and obvious truths.

In order to disagree with my assertion, you yourself must have an assertion that flatly contradicts it, and is in turn your ideology. (BTW, your words
nothing else does or can expound eternal Truth. only reflect my view regarding the totality of Truth - I specifically said that practically every religion or philosophy has some level/amount of truth. So yes, most of us perceive a certain "percentage" of the fabled elephant; my claim is that Orthodoxy (not the individual) perceives the whole elephant.


the convoluted sophistry with which adults explain their god's "working in mysterious ways that we cannot understand"
This is contradicted in my experience by the fact that my particular worldview DOES explain everything that we really want explained - why is there suffering? What is our purpose? etc. The mystical parts (how is it that God is both One and Three?) are not questions that have haunted humanity from its beginnings. So we don't go around in Orthodoxy saying "God works in mysterious ways" (although I have no doubt you've encountered that often enough in the Protestant world). So in the case of what I'm defending I'll deny the charge of sophistry.

BTW, did you read Chesterton's observations in the intro to TEM about the special intellectual bias we have in the West against Christianity?

Russian Lad
22-06-2009, 14:47
It never ceases to amaze me, in general, how many people there are out there who, having come from a drop of sperm on someone's prick by a mere play of chance, want or expect something after their life is finished, refusing to realize that they came from nothing and will return exactly there.

robertmf
22-06-2009, 15:24
This is contradicted in my experience by the fact that my particular worldview DOES explain everything that we really want explained - why is there suffering? What is our purpose? etc.

The religious word is "theodicy". Needless to say it is a BIG argument :eek:
Theodicy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Consensus_icon.svg" class="image"><img alt="Consensus icon.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Consensus_icon.svg/50px-Consensus_icon.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/4/49/Consensus_icon.svg/50px-Consensus_icon.svg.png

... and for extra credit, you can review, "eschatology" :-:bookworm:

rusmeister
22-06-2009, 19:17
The religious word is "theodicy". Needless to say it is a BIG argument :eek:
Theodicy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy)

... and for extra credit, you can review, "eschatology" :-:bookworm:

Thanks, Robert!
I took a gander at the wikipedia article and would have to say that it can't be authoritative for me - the writers (to date) don't display any broad knowledge of what Christian theodicy looks like (let alone Orthodox theodicy) - citing rather merely a few independent Protestant thinkers. The reference to "modified dualism" looks like a definition of the writer of that section, again, ignorant of both dualism and Orthodox Christianity. But the term was one I hadn't read about in-depth previously. I already have my extra credit for eschatology, though. :)

robertmf
22-06-2009, 20:22
Thanks, Robert!
I took a gander at the wikipedia article and would have to say that it can't be authoritative for me - the writers (to date) don't display any broad knowledge of what Christian theodicy looks like (let alone Orthodox theodicy) - citing rather merely a few independent Protestant thinkers. The reference to "modified dualism" looks like a definition of the writer of that section, again, ignorant of both dualism and Orthodox Christianity. But the term was one I hadn't read about in-depth previously. I already have my extra credit for eschatology, though. :)

I used wikipedia as an example link. Google [Theodicy] comes up all over the place in various guises depending on who you're reading.


"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
— Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

rusmeister
22-06-2009, 23:26
I used wikipedia as an example link. Google [Theodicy] comes up all over the place in various guises depending on who you're reading.


"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
— Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

The thing that this ignores in the Christian claim is the third option: If He can, and He would like to, but doing so would deprive us of our free will and make all of our actions of no effect - because the alternative is that our actions would not matter because God would automatically cancel any that He did not like. We fail to recognize the honor God does to us in allowing our choices to matter.

IOW, false dilemma. I guess my post will go without thanks. But it is the plain truth.

robertmf
22-06-2009, 23:44
The thing that this ignores in the Christian claim is the third option: If He can, and he would like to, but doing so would deprive us of our free will and make all of our actions of no effect - they would not matter because God would automatically cancel any that He did not like. We fail to recognize the honor God does to us in allowing our choices to matter.

IOW, false dilemma. I guess my post will go without thanks. But it is the plain truth.

:hooray: What if "free will" is an illusion of man and all is indeed determined ? Is it possible to tell the difference ...

At any rate, you have stumbled onto another philosophy debate :-)
Philosophy: Free Will vs. Determinism: WSM Explains Limited Free Will over Determinism (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm)

rusmeister
23-06-2009, 06:16
:hooray: What if "free will" is an illusion of man and all is indeed determined ? Is it possible to tell the difference ...

At any rate, you have stumbled onto another philosophy debate :-)
Philosophy: Free Will vs. Determinism: WSM Explains Limited Free Will over Determinism (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm)


I guess you still haven't read what Chesterton said in Orthodoxy (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch3.html) about all that (ch 2-4 in particular).
If that were so, then nothing we said or did would matter. If everything were really "cause and effect" then there would be no choice, for that is what free will is. If there is no choice, then nothing matters, including our thoughts. What we are writing now is the useless babbling of two monkeys. Any debate that starts from determinism has already cut off the very branch that it is sitting on. It is the suicide of thought itself.

I can't have a reasonable debate with anyone who says that either thought or action (which come down to the same thing) are pre-determined. It's like talking with lunatics, albeit ones whose thought processes work remarkably well - except for seeing the fatal flaw in logic at the very beginning of their chain that immediately makes all of their thoughts (and actions) nonsense. Something can only be logically supported if it is supported from the very beginning of the chain - what is reason? Do I have any right to think at all? Do my thoughts matter? This is why I can't even talk with you about determinism until we talk about the nature of thought, because that is where determinism contradicts itself. (ie I can examine opposing arguments if we first examine the root of the argument)

The idea of "limited free will" is just a tacit attempt to combine the two doctrines and somehow restore the branch while continuing to cut it off; of acknowledging that determinism can't work while still trying to hold onto it.

If you want a useful discussion, let's debate Chesterton. It's been written, better than I could do it, and I don't have the time or energy to re-do it (for the same reason I don't have time to expand my list of forums and external debates). I've summed up the argument. I feel that anything that fails to respond to those arguments on the nature of thought is not worth examining.

robertmf
23-06-2009, 17:29
... That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed ...

... Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought.

Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think."

This guy Chesterton doesn't like the formal logic that the sciences require ! "Evolution" draws no such conclusion (last sentence above).

rusmeister
23-06-2009, 19:07
... That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed ...

... Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought.

Descartes said, "I think; therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I cannot think."

This guy Chesterton doesn't like the formal logic that the sciences require ! "Evolution" draws no such conclusion (last sentence above).

Thanks for the response, Robert, but please note, he said philosophic evolutionist , not, "the science of evolutionary theory". He prefaced this by saying

Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.
Thus, it is not at all an attack upon science, but the implications of what it means if a person takes evolution to be more than merely a theory of how things came to be - which is what many people do. Lewis called it "the Myth of Evolutionism", something quite distinct from science. (Lewis's distinction and terminology would probably make it clearer - see his essays "The Funeral of a Great Myth" and "De Futilitate" in "Christian reflections" (later renamed "The Seeing Eye".
here's a related essay, online, tho' it is not as direct as the other: DOGMA AND THE UNIVERSE (http://www.mwainc.net/rod/Dogma%20and%20the%20Universe.htm)

robertmf
23-06-2009, 19:27
... here's a related essay, online, tho' it is not as direct as the other: DOGMA AND THE UNIVERSE (http://www.mwainc.net/rod/Dogma%20and%20the%20Universe.htm)

I can't tell if CS Lewis and Chesterton are arguing against the basis of Christianity as a religion, or against organized religion dogma in general, but especially Christianity.

Do you happen to know the religious beliefs, if any, of Lewis and Chesterton ? Agnostics ? Atheists ?

rusmeister
23-06-2009, 22:38
I can't tell if CS Lewis and Chesterton are arguing against the basis of Christianity as a religion, or against organized religion dogma in general, but especially Christianity.

Do you happen to know the religious beliefs, if any, of Lewis and Chesterton ? Agnostics ? Atheists ?


Is that last post for real? (Either way, it looks like end of conversation...)

MickeyTong
24-06-2009, 00:44
BTW, did you read Chesterton's observations in the intro to TEM about the special intellectual bias we have in the West against Christianity?
Yes I did, and I suppose he has a valid point about people "living in the shadow of Christianity" being unable to view it with the impartiality they use to examine non-Christian faiths - I would argue that this is why, should they accept a faith, it is usually Christianity. I would also suggest that any antipathy they feel towards Christianity, rather than other faiths, may be because they live in societies where Christianity is the predominant faith.
And I'd probably agree that there are many people who are ignorant, without knowing it, about the Christianity they reject.
Since I don't believe in "The Creator" it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to reject "the Truth" of any system based on the premise of a Creator....despite the erudition and eloquence of Chesterton or Lewis. No doubt there are people capable of "selling" Islam, Hasidic Judaism, Buddhism, Krishna Consciousness, etc, in terms which are elegantly irresistible.
Your analogy of counterfeit currency implying the necessity of legitimate currency has its limits. Personally, the existence of counterfeit $9 does not convince me that there must be an authentic $9 bill.

robertmf
24-06-2009, 02:12
Your analogy of counterfeit currency implying the necessity of legitimate currency has its limits. Personally, the existence of counterfeit $9 does not convince me that there must be an authentic $9 bill.

That's the concept I was fumbling for ... "Negative proof".

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

rusmeister
24-06-2009, 06:20
Yes I did, and I suppose he has a valid point about people "living in the shadow of Christianity" being unable to view it with the impartiality they use to examine non-Christian faiths - I would argue that this is why, should they accept a faith, it is usually Christianity. I would also suggest that any antipathy they feel towards Christianity, rather than other faiths, may be because they live in societies where Christianity is the predominant faith.
And I'd probably agree that there are many people who are ignorant, without knowing it, about the Christianity they reject.
Since I don't believe in "The Creator" it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to reject "the Truth" of any system based on the premise of a Creator....despite the erudition and eloquence of Chesterton or Lewis. No doubt there are people capable of "selling" Islam, Hasidic Judaism, Buddhism, Krishna Consciousness, etc, in terms which are elegantly irresistible.
Your analogy of counterfeit currency implying the necessity of legitimate currency has its limits. Personally, the existence of counterfeit $9 does not convince me that there must be an authentic $9 bill.

Thanks, Mickey - that's all I could reasonably expect from you. I think you are ahead of practically all of the crowd if you recognize that special bias. That's the first step toward anything like genuine objectivity.

ALL analogies have their limits - so I was speaking in terms of existing bills - something people would actually try to counterfeit.
(OT, but reminds me of GKC's great comment on forgery - that the sensitive youth of the future will be taught to call it, not 'forgery', but 'homeography' or 'script assimilation'. That could also apply to plagiarism. It's a great essay and predicts a lot of what has since actually happened:
ON EVIL EUPHEMISMS (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/on_evil_euphemisms.html)
What bore the name of "companionate marriage in 1900's England is now called 'common-law marriage', FWIW.

MickeyTong
24-06-2009, 15:02
Thanks, Mickey - that's all I could reasonably expect from you. I think you are ahead of practically all of the crowd if you recognize that special bias. That's the first step toward anything like genuine objectivity.

ALL analogies have their limits - so I was speaking in terms of existing bills - something people would actually try to counterfeit.
(OT, but reminds me of GKC's great comment on forgery - that the sensitive youth of the future will be taught to call it, not 'forgery', but 'homeography' or 'script assimilation'. That could also apply to plagiarism. It's a great essay and predicts a lot of what has since actually happened:
ON EVIL EUPHEMISMS (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/on_evil_euphemisms.html)
What bore the name of "companionate marriage in 1900's England is now called 'common-law marriage', FWIW.

Perhaps those who opt for common-law marriage (or illegitimate sex by living in sin) are displaying a lack of bias towards Christianity: they don't want a priest to sanction their relationship, but neither do they want it endorsed by a bonze, a mullah, or a rabbi, etc.

You probably don't have a high regard for the work of Joseph Campbell, but I think his work does much to counter any pro- or anti-Christian bias. He also states that myths are vitally important in our lives, whether or not we know it, and whether or not we like it.
The Hero with a Thousand Faces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Hero_1000_faces_book_2008.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Hero 1000 faces book 2008.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Hero_1000_faces_book_2008.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/7/71/Hero_1000_faces_book_2008.jpg
Monomyth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Heroesjourney.jpg" class="image"><img alt="This chart outlines the monomyth." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Heroesjourney.jpg/220px-Heroesjourney.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/61/Heroesjourney.jpg/220px-Heroesjourney.jpg
Joseph Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Joseph_Campbell_circa_1982.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Joseph_Campbell_circa_1982.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/f/f9/Joseph_Campbell_circa_1982.jpg

rusmeister
24-06-2009, 23:44
Perhaps those who opt for common-law marriage (or illegitimate sex by living in sin) are displaying a lack of bias towards Christianity: they don't want a priest to sanction their relationship, but neither do they want it endorsed by a bonze, a mullah, or a rabbi, etc.

If by that you mean they are indifferent to Christianity, no argument. Well, yes argument. See below. If you mean 'neutral', then of course not. They simply ignore and actually deny its teachings - thus the series of euphemisms that have sprung up over the 20th century in the part of the world once dominated by Christendom (this is by no means limited to the one sin - although it's worth noting that the word 'sin' probably brings up automatic reactions and assumptions of unreasonableness without actual understanding of what the nature of sin is according to (Orthodox) Christian theology).
Since the teachings are a threat to how they want to live - they condemn the lifestyle and say that it is actually damaging and destructive to the way we were designed to live - they couldn't really be unbiased. They would certainly view anything negatively that threatened to thwart their desires. Thus, there would always be a degree of bias. To be neutral to such teachings, they would have to be disinterested.


You probably don't have a high regard for the work of Joseph Campbell, but I think his work does much to counter any pro- or anti-Christian bias. He also states that myths are vitally important in our lives, whether or not we know it, and whether or not we like it.

I obviously can't have a high regard for it. If one finds an Authority to be higher than that of any individual, and that that Authority is, as I said, consistently right and explains everything I want explained, then I must of necessity consider it to be more correct than Mr. Campbell. Agreed that myths do have a much more vital significance than is generally supposed (the default assumption is that "myth = false"). I do think that he no doubt expresses some truth, which would intersect with what I do accept about mythology - although I see it as Lewis and Tolkien did, as a reflection of the True Myth.


Since most discussions are probably vain, I'd just say that the one thing I hope to get across to people intelligent enough to get it is that faith and reason ARE compatible, and that Christianity, despite the impressions created by fundamentalist whackos - whose history extends back less than 200 years out of Christianity's 2,000, is actually a highly sophisticated belief system that is no shame for highly intelligent people to accept, and that most arguments typically raised against it are actually quite primitive, and people completely unaware that such arguments have always been raised, and have rational refutation that was established, in most cases, many centuries ago. IOW, most objections to historical Christianity, as opposed to reactions to what people experience in the Christianity of today, are simply the product of ignorance - not knowing. So when people (examples on this site will remain unnamed) come along with snide comments laughing at those fundie whackos and think they have therefore proved that all forms of the faith are silly, they are only deceiving themselves. That's about all I can really hope to do here.

PS - my 'caps' button works poorly; thus sometimes my attempt to capitalize fails to work. My apologies for the typos.

Russian Lad
25-06-2009, 18:52
The thing that this ignores in the Christian claim is the third option: If He can, and He would like to, but doing so would deprive us of our free will and make all of our actions of no effect - because the alternative is that our actions would not matter because God would automatically cancel any that He did not like. We fail to recognize the honor God does to us in allowing our choices to matter.

A rather pervert logic is applied here:
the fact that He does not interfere proves that He exists.
He could be cancelling just the bad actions, right? Or at least punishing for them - here, not in the mythical afterlife. I have sort of noticed that the most ruthless and conscience-free individuals succeed the most in this life.
And any of you believers care to answer one simple question: why is it you do not believe in the existence of Santa? The proofs of his existence are numerous, even omnipresent.

robertmf
25-06-2009, 19:43
And any of you believers care to answer one simple question: why is it you do not believe in the existence of Santa?

The proofs of his existence are numerous, even omnipresent.

re: the movies Miracle On 34th Street (original) or Oh God! (Geo. Burns)

DDT
25-06-2009, 20:40
A rather pervert logic is applied here:
the fact that He does not interfere proves that He exists.
He could be cancelling just the bad actions, right? Or at least punishing for them - here, not in the mythical afterlife. I have sort of noticed that the most ruthless and conscience-free individuals succeed the most in this life.
And any of you believers care to answer one simple question: why is it you do not believe in the existence of Santa? The proofs of his existence are numerous, even omnipresent.

The problem is the Bible and it's prophecies! If one carefully studies that facts, one cannot ignore the prophecies that came to pass as predicted in the Bible. There are no scientific explanations and coincidence is far too high. Furthermore, there is no other writing, including Nostradamus or Islam and all other "religions," that comes close to the detailed prophecies of the Bible. Some of these Biblical prophecies are too specific and even include names of people, too be explained.

This presents a problem for those who want to rule out the existence of God. That, along with no scientific explanation for the evolutional development of the Eye, the Ear, and the development of many life forms such as the Bombardier Beetle which scientifically could not have evolved, and the overall mathematical impossibilities of life creating it'self, forces the open minded person to keep an open mind on the subject of a God.

GaNozri
25-06-2009, 20:54
I, for example, Olga, believe neither in God nor in Santa, so it is better to say not "we" but "some people".

Atheism is a religion like any other.

is4fun
25-06-2009, 21:37
Atheism is a religion like any other.

Com'on GaNozri. Athism is a religion? The concept is beyond uninteresting, although, I do seem to remember indoctrinating someone back about 30 years ago, I told him the earth does revolve around the sun and the plague was due to tiny animals that killed people. Science has its foundation of observation. Enough said.

rusmeister
25-06-2009, 22:46
A rather pervert logic is applied here:
the fact that He does not interfere proves that He exists.
He could be cancelling just the bad actions, right? Or at least punishing for them - here, not in the mythical afterlife. I have sort of noticed that the most ruthless and conscience-free individuals succeed the most in this life.
And any of you believers care to answer one simple question: why is it you do not believe in the existence of Santa? The proofs of his existence are numerous, even omnipresent.
Hi, Russian Lad,
I'm not suggesting what you suggest - the idea that non-interference proves existence is your suggestion, not mine. I don't claim that it does.

Actually, I do believe in Santa. Only not exactly in the way he is presented in the modern Western world. See Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mergefrom.svg" class="image"><img alt="Mergefrom.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Mergefrom.svg/50px-Mergefrom.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0f/Mergefrom.svg/50px-Mergefrom.svg.png. And yes, he is a mega-saint (he'd be practically one of the Valar in Tolkien's world) and he can pray to the Lord for us (speaking from the context of Orthodoxy). You must have seen thousands of icons of him floating around.

Russian Lad
26-06-2009, 01:42
The problem is the Bible and it's prophecies! If one carefully studies that facts, one cannot ignore the prophecies that came to pass as predicted in the Bible. There are no scientific explanations and coincidence is far too high.

It is just a book of fairytales, you can read it across and from the back and find anything that suits you best, for anything. That's why Christianity has so many lines to it, some at war with each other. Why is it so popular? One can rule people using it. Mess up their brains and direct them in the needed direction.
Meister, I am impressed, really. But you are a tiny minority, usually believers (or any people) believe in Santa till they reach a certain age in their childhood development. Enough said:).
Ganozri, atheism is not a religion, just like religion is not atheism, see?:)

rusmeister
26-06-2009, 20:07
It is just a book of fairytales, you can read it across and from the back and find anything that suits you best, for anything. That's why Christianity has so many lines to it, some at war with each other. Why is it so popular? One can rule people using it. Mess up their brains and direct them in the needed direction.


C'mon, Russian Lad, I think you know that classifying the Bible as "just a book of fairytales" is far from accurate; and that actual historical events acknowledged by both history and archeology are recorded in the Bible.


There is another perspective on the many lines of Christianity - and that turns on whether you understand the distinction between a contradiction and a paradox, and that is that much of what we call existence is admittedly paradoxical. We desperately don't want to die, yet we must. We want to do good, yet we actually do plenty of evil. (Simplified, but to the point.) It is a religion or philosophy that acknowledges those paradoxes that is much more likely to be true than one that denies them.
And when you say "needed direction", you are using the passive voice and not identifying the subject. What if the subject really is a Being that actually created us? Then the direction would be truly needed - it would mean beginning to live our lives according to design and the instruction manual, rather than according to mere desires, which we know can destroy us. If I take the alcoholic as an example of ruined or 'bent' desires - desire for something initially good twisted into something destructive, often without the subject realizing it.

Russian Lad
26-06-2009, 23:08
C'mon, Russian Lad, I think you know that classifying the Bible as "just a book of fairytales" is far from accurate; and that actual historical events acknowledged by both history and archeology are recorded in the Bible.

Name to me actual historical events and find direct allusions to them in this book for me. I would really appreciate that. I mean, direct references, not some parables or fancy references that can be applied pretty much to any event or person. If one writes vaguely his writing can be attributed to mostly anything.
There is surely a mistery in our creation, but we are as close to desiphering it, in my opinion, as tape worms are close to making computers. Do not be naive thinking that a moth-ball covered book can give you answers. It can just give you an illusion of the Truth, and you are as content with it as little children are content with Santa's presents. Wrong! Too easy.

is4fun
26-06-2009, 23:28
"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."

Mark Twain

is4fun
26-06-2009, 23:46
Hi, Russian Lad,
I'm not suggesting what you suggest - the idea that non-interference proves existence is your suggestion, not mine. I don't claim that it does.

Actually, I do believe in Santa. Only not exactly in the way he is presented in the modern Western world. See St Nicholas of Myra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Myra). And yes, he is a mega-saint (he'd be practically one of the Valar in Tolkien's world) and he can pray to the Lord for us (speaking from the context of Orthodoxy). You must have seen thousands of icons of him floating around.

rusmeister, I must admire your tenaciousness, however, to an atheist, the belief in a god could be best summed up by a quote from John McCarthy:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

Russian Lad
26-06-2009, 23:48
"Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."

So? I do not think there is Satan since there is no Jesus or God or Santa. Humans are just like tape worms to the Universe - it will not care if we disappear, will it?

is4fun
26-06-2009, 23:49
So? I do not think there is Satan since there is no Jesus or God or Santa. Humans are just like tape worms to the Universe - it will not care if we disappear, will it?

You must read Mark Twain to understand his humor. Read it carefully.

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 01:44
You must read Mark Twain to understand his humor. Read it carefully.

He was a must-read in the 5th grade of the high school I attended. However, you may want to elaborate on the citation you quoted, it is a discussion forum, not a quotes exchange portal.

rusmeister
27-06-2009, 10:07
Name to me actual historical events and find direct allusions to them in this book for me. I would really appreciate that. I mean, direct references, not some parables or fancy references that can be applied pretty much to any event or person. If one writes vaguely his writing can be attributed to mostly anything.
There is surely a mistery in our creation, but we are as close to desiphering it, in my opinion, as tape worms are close to making computers. Do not be naive thinking that a moth-ball covered book can give you answers. It can just give you an illusion of the Truth, and you are as content with it as little children are content with Santa's presents. Wrong! Too easy.

Is this the result of modern Russian education? ("Is this the best that you can do, Saruman?"Theoden in PJ's LOTR, the Two Towers)

To think that the Bible has no references to actual historical events?

Need I name the factual historical existence of the kingdom of Israel, the definitive existence of Solomon, the invasion of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and the captivity? The fact that a Christian faith did indeed arise in Israel and spread quickly throughout the Roman world? Just for a few off-the-cuff examples. Are you really unaware that the Bible describes these events?

It is actually good to be content with something good. Put another way, the whole point of seeing through something is to be able to ultimately see something. What you really want to see, when you have examined everything with x-rays, is goodness and meaning to our existence. (That, in itself, does not prove it - but if you do not desire these things - if you prefer death, destruction and oblivion to existence, joy. learning and growing, you are either deceiving yourself - and others - or insane.)

I do agree with you, insofar as you are talking about relying on our own, human authority - what we can learn on our own. But then, I don't claim any truth on my own authority - only that I have found through my own experience that what the Church teaches really is true.

I'll withhold on terms like "naive". I think a little courtesy and acknowledgment (until proven otherwise) of basic intelligence on the part of others will go farther.

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 17:33
Is this the result of modern Russian education? ("Is this the best that you can do, Saruman?"Theoden in PJ's LOTR, the Two Towers)

To think that the Bible has no references to actual historical events?

Need I name the factual historical existence of the kingdom of Israel, the definitive existence of Solomon, the invasion of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and the captivity? The fact that a Christian faith did indeed arise in Israel and spread quickly throughout the Roman world? Just for a few off-the-cuff examples. Are you really unaware that the Bible describes these events?

Actually I studied the Bible in a Western Bible college, so I know some details. Of course, the Bible is based on some historical events, however, I do not see it as a book of prophesies. It does not take a genius to predict that the human civilization will eventually come to an end, even I can tell you that much. Show me some verses referring to any of the events of the last two centuries. Not in the form of vague allusions, but direct references. The Bible is used as a masses control tool - its only ultimate purpose. To control, to rule. You as a devout Christian will be a submissive citizen who will not participate in a violent anti-government demonstration, for example. You are hardly capable of murder or stealing. Dubt you are subject to alcoholism or promiscuity. Hence, you are more or less an ideal society unit. A duped one, though, since it is your job to prove to me the existence of Jesus, not mine to disprove it. If I claim I saw a werewolf or was bitten by a vampire, and have proofs of their existence, it will be my job to show these proofs to you since it is logical for you to have doubts.

rusmeister
27-06-2009, 23:17
Actually I studied the Bible in a Western Bible college, so I know some details. Of course, the Bible is based on some historical events, however, I do not see it as a book of prophesies. It does not take a genius to predict that the human civilization will eventually come to an end, even I can tell you that much. Show me some verses referring to any of the events of the last two centuries. Not in the form of vague allusions, but direct references. The Bible is used as a masses control tool - its only ultimate purpose. To control, to rule. You as a devout Christian will be a submissive citizen who will not participate in a violent anti-government demonstration, for example. You are hardly capable of murder or stealing. Dubt you are subject to alcoholism or promiscuity. Hence, you are more or less an ideal society unit. A duped one, though, since it is your job to prove to me the existence of Jesus, not mine to disprove it. If I claim I saw a werewolf or was bitten by a vampire, and have proofs of their existence, it will be my job to show these proofs to you since it is logical for you to have doubts.

I suspect you may have been responding to some things DDT claimed that I do not support. I make no claims of Nostradamus-like prophecies for our time. I simply object to some of your blunter, and therefore inaccurate statements. If you say that the Bible is just a book of fairy-tales, or that its only ultimate purpose is to control the masses, you are making broad and unreasonable statements. If you say that some people use it as a control tool, I would say you are right.

Also, you ask for proof, as if faith were a science. You might as well ask what is the smell of the color yellow. Faith cannot be proved. It is a conscious choice, and is a virtue when the choice is in spite of what your senses tell you. But agreed that it is logical and normal to have doubts. Faith is the choice to believe in spite of doubt.

I have serious problems with western protestant theology myself, and probably agree with some of your conclusions regarding your bible college experience.

is4fun
28-06-2009, 08:18
An excellent example on how the Church is used to manipulate society on the behalf of others...

Church Calls on Debtors to Repay or Face Hell

25 June 2009By Natalya Krainova / The Moscow Times

Court marshals are putting their faith in the Russian Orthodox Church to ease their workload as a growing number of people default on debts amid the economic crisis.

The Federal Court Marshals Service and the Moscow Patriarchate have signed an agreement under which priests will denounce the failure to repay debts as a sin in sermons and during private meetings with debtors organized by court marshals, the court marshals service said Wednesday.

"Priests will say that unpaid debt is the same as theft in Christianity," a spokesman for the court marshals service told The Moscow Times on customary condition of anonymity.

Regional court marshals have "occasionally" involved Orthodox priests, as well as Muslim and Buddhist religious leaders, in their efforts to encourage people to make good on their debts in recent years, but the new agreement will take the cooperation with the Orthodox Church nationwide, the spokesman said.

Talks with Muslim and Buddhist religious leaders to sign similar agreements are under way, he said.

In Islam, an indebted person can't make the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia that every Muslim has to make at least once in his life, the spokesman said.

Buddhists, who teach reincarnation, believe that people's debts remain with them in each of their afterlives and "burden their karma," he said.

Some Orthodox believers, who face the prospect of hell if their unpaid debts are counted as unforgiven sins, expressed disdain with the church's involvement in the court marshals' debt collection drive.

"It is not the church's business to make people return their debts," said Gennady Titov, 37, a Moscow office manager with an outstanding bank loan. "Court marshals have no right to use the church for this."

A request for comment left with the Moscow Patriarchate's department on cooperation with military forces and law enforcement agencies, which signed the agreement, went unanswered Wednesday.

Court marshals have said their workload has increased amid the crisis.

Twenty-six percent of Russian families have outstanding debt, according to a survey conducted by state-run VTsIOM this month. A total of 52 percent of respondents said the economic crisis had made it more difficult to repay their debt, while 41 percent said the crisis had not affected their ability to pay.

The church has cooperated with the authorities in the past. In December, Orthodox priests took to the streets with Penza region traffic police and preached to violators who were flagged down, Noviye Izvestia reported at the time.

In February 2007, priests in a Tolyatti church integrated traffic rules into their sermons at the request of the traffic police, Noviye Izvestia said.

DDT
28-06-2009, 10:46
Show me some verses referring to any of the events of the last two centuries. Not in the form of vague allusions, but direct references.

Here's couple for you

9. The people of Israel will never cease to be a nation of people
Bible passage: Jeremiah 31:35-36
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Today

In Jeremiah 31:35-36, the Bible said that as surely as God has decreed the sun to shine, he too has decreed that the people of Israel will never cease to be a nation of people. This promise of preservation continues to be fulfilled today, as the Jewish people maintain their identity as a distinct group of people, with its own culture, religion and language. This is a remarkable feat considering the vast number of indigenous peoples throughout the world who have lost their language and culture even without the additional burden of being exiled from their homeland. The Jews, however, endured 18 centuries of dispersion since they were exiled from their homeland by the Romans in 135 AD. Today, there are Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world who can speak the same Hebrew language that is found in even the oldest of the Biblical scriptures. (By comparison, an Englishman today would have a difficult time reading an English text written a mere 500 years ago).

Jeremiah 31:35-36
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD Almighty is his name: "Only if these decrees vanish from my sight," declares the LORD, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me."

10. The exiled people of Israel would return to Israel
Bible passage: Jeremiah 32:37-41
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: late 1800s to today

In Jeremiah 32:37-41, the prophet said the people of Israel would return to their homeland. Jeremiah lived during a time when the Babylonians were forcing the Jews out of their homeland about 2600 years ago. Many Jews later returned but were forced out again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. During the past 200 years, millions of exiled Jews have returned to Israel from countries all over the world.

Jeremiah 32:37-41
I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
10 Prophecies Fulfilled Before 1900's - Talk Jesus | Christian Forums (http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/9-10-prophecies-fulfilled-before-1900s.html)

Some more:http://www.therefinersfire.org/recent_prophecy.htm
I suggest that you do not want anymore prophecy fulfilled. You won't like the ones to come.

rusmeister
28-06-2009, 12:15
An excellent example on how the Church is used to manipulate society on the behalf of others...

Church Calls on Debtors to Repay or Face Hell

25 June 2009By Natalya Krainova / The Moscow Times

Court marshals are putting their faith in the Russian Orthodox Church to ease their workload as a growing number of people default on debts amid the economic crisis.

The Federal Court Marshals Service and the Moscow Patriarchate have signed an agreement under which priests will denounce the failure to repay debts as a sin in sermons and during private meetings with debtors organized by court marshals, the court marshals service said Wednesday.

"Priests will say that unpaid debt is the same as theft in Christianity," a spokesman for the court marshals service told The Moscow Times on customary condition of anonymity.

Regional court marshals have "occasionally" involved Orthodox priests, as well as Muslim and Buddhist religious leaders, in their efforts to encourage people to make good on their debts in recent years, but the new agreement will take the cooperation with the Orthodox Church nationwide, the spokesman said.

Talks with Muslim and Buddhist religious leaders to sign similar agreements are under way, he said.

In Islam, an indebted person can't make the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia that every Muslim has to make at least once in his life, the spokesman said.

Buddhists, who teach reincarnation, believe that people's debts remain with them in each of their afterlives and "burden their karma," he said.

Some Orthodox believers, who face the prospect of hell if their unpaid debts are counted as unforgiven sins, expressed disdain with the church's involvement in the court marshals' debt collection drive.

"It is not the church's business to make people return their debts," said Gennady Titov, 37, a Moscow office manager with an outstanding bank loan. "Court marshals have no right to use the church for this."

A request for comment left with the Moscow Patriarchate's department on cooperation with military forces and law enforcement agencies, which signed the agreement, went unanswered Wednesday.

Court marshals have said their workload has increased amid the crisis.

Twenty-six percent of Russian families have outstanding debt, according to a survey conducted by state-run VTsIOM this month. A total of 52 percent of respondents said the economic crisis had made it more difficult to repay their debt, while 41 percent said the crisis had not affected their ability to pay.

The church has cooperated with the authorities in the past. In December, Orthodox priests took to the streets with Penza region traffic police and preached to violators who were flagged down, Noviye Izvestia reported at the time.

In February 2007, priests in a Tolyatti church integrated traffic rules into their sermons at the request of the traffic police, Noviye Izvestia said.

This is an interesting question.
One thing I think I can do to muddy the waters for those of you who only see evil and manipulation in this - but first, I should make it clear that government interference or pressure in Church affairs is heinous and contemptible. The question is whether they are asking Church representatives to teach what the Orthodox Church already teaches (ie, just to point it out, remind people) or whether they are asking them to do something that is actually not, in fact, a teaching of Orthodoxy. The latter is inexcusable. Even then, it may be a sin of Church leaders, which is not the same thing as the Church itself - which only ratifies actions over centuries of agreed practice, or via ecumenical Councils. In that case, the actions of Church leaders may be condemned - but an Orthodox Christian had better be pretty darn sure that that IS the case, or else he is just being schismatic.

But it's obvious that, regarding most cases of ordinary debt, this is exactly what the Church does teach. You really do have to pay your debts. You really do have to render to Caesar. In my 1948 prayerbook, there is a specific point, among the more heinous sins, of defrauding a workman of his wages. Obviously, there could be exceptions, but as a general rule, there is nothing remarkable about this. Logically, they also ought to remind parishioners to not commit other sins (which, generally speaking, they do) but it is easy to see why the government would want to see taxes paid to the government, as well as companies actually paying their workers, just for a couple of quick example and would want to use the fact that the Church does teach us to be honorable. It is worth noting that usury itself is essentially sin. (I'd remind unbelievers that sin is better understood as behavior that is actually damaging for us in one way or another, whether we perceive it or not, rather than arbitrary violations of a code, the way many people (falsely) imagine sin to be.

Again, agreed that some situations are absurd and are the failings and wrongs of individual priests/leaders.

Russian Lad
28-06-2009, 17:15
In Jeremiah 32:37-41, the prophet said the people of Israel would return to their homeland. Jeremiah lived during a time when the Babylonians were forcing the Jews out of their homeland about 2600 years ago. Many Jews later returned but were forced out again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago.

There is no date there, DDT, is there? To me, a modern reader, it is just a reference to the tribulations of those particular times, nothing to do with the present day.
I might just as well declare myself a great prophet and write: "Hear, brethren, there will be a time of great tribulations for the Russian nation, but I tell you, my brethren, with my divine help you will preserve the Russian land as a whole and will multiply its borders". Mission accomplished, I am bound to be worshipped in, say, 100 years.

Meister, religion is a tremendous power, it serves many other purposes, just like any power, but its primary role is to control the masses. How else can you explain seeing former die-hard commies in churches clutching candles and kissing hands of the priests? They know better than you and me what power a religion is. People will die for it in wars, they will be obedient for the name of it in the time of peace. A herd of sheep ready to follow any path indicated by the masters. Isn't it repulsive for you to be a part of it? There is a great free world outside your doors just waiting for your dogmas to shatter. True, you will live only one life and there will be total darkness after the death (which you will not feel anyway, just like you felt nothing before your birth), but you will be Free. Discard the opiate of the people and join the reality.

DDT
28-06-2009, 23:15
You really do have to pay your debts. You really do have to render to Caesar.
This is one point where the supposed teachings of Jesus fails humanity! IF you read the text where Jesus said "Give unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's", it seems that it is just a smug answer given in order to not answer but evade the real the question. The question that was being asked of Jesus was, "Is it right to finance our own destruction by paying for it ourselves to the very people who want to destroy us? Jesus answered , "Whatever is Caesar's, give to him." Hmmmm....It really doesn't help does it!

So, what is Caesar's? Any coin with Caesar's image on it? Or every Jews life?

Modern day Christians transfer this idea of "Caesar's" to mean any Tax for any purpose. What if the government imposed a tax specifically to finance the sacrifice of six month old baby girls? How would Christians feel about that?

As you can see the statement given by Jesus and the story as told in the New testament really doesn't tell us much at face value. One needs to investigate a whole lot more before one starts handing out blanket statements about paying one's taxes as a Christian duty!

And let's not forget, that in a free country like the USA, (I don't know about Ceasar's time) the money is not owned by the President or those in power, but by all the people collectively. So in essence, don't you think that a good Christian should withhold his taxes if he doesn't believe in them, since one owns his own money in a free society.

rusmeister
29-06-2009, 19:00
This is one point where the supposed teachings of Jesus fails humanity! IF you read the text where Jesus said "Give unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's", it seems that it is just a smug answer given in order to not answer but evade the real the question. The question that was being asked of Jesus was, "Is it right to finance our own destruction by paying for it ourselves to the very people who want to destroy us? Jesus answered , "Whatever is Caesar's, give to him." Hmmmm....It really doesn't help does it!

So, what is Caesar's? Any coin with Caesar's image on it? Or every Jews life?

Modern day Christians transfer this idea of "Caesar's" to mean any Tax for any purpose. What if the government imposed a tax specifically to finance the sacrifice of six month old baby girls? How would Christians feel about that?

As you can see the statement given by Jesus and the story as told in the New testament really doesn't tell us much at face value. One needs to investigate a whole lot more before one starts handing out blanket statements about paying one's taxes as a Christian duty!

And let's not forget, that in a free country like the USA, (I don't know about Ceasar's time) the money is not owned by the President or those in power, but by all the people collectively. So in essence, don't you think that a good Christian should withhold his taxes if he doesn't believe in them, since one owns his own money in a free society.

Hi DDT,
I'll agree with you that the given text does not specifically say or necessarily always mean "taxes". However, it does mean that we need to admit, with discernment, what Caesar, so to speak, DOES have a right to demand, and I submit that no Christian saint has stood up against civil authorities regarding any secular question. They saved their civil disobedience for the defense of the Faith, not the protection of our worldly (and temporary) goods. So no, I don't think a good Christian, in most reasonable circumstances that we can imagine, should withhold taxes. The exceptions would have to be extraordinary and/or catastrophic.Since you offer an extreme and catastrophic example, in that case, of course you're right. But frankly, that case doesn't really exist. We don't live in ancient Carthage.

rusmeister
29-06-2009, 19:10
Meister, religion is a tremendous power, it serves many other purposes, just like any power, but its primary role is to control the masses. How else can you explain seeing former die-hard commies in churches clutching candles and kissing hands of the priests? They know better than you and me what power a religion is. People will die for it in wars, they will be obedient for the name of it in the time of peace. A herd of sheep ready to follow any path indicated by the masters. Isn't it repulsive for you to be a part of it? There is a great free world outside your doors just waiting for your dogmas to shatter. True, you will live only one life and there will be total darkness after the death (which you will not feel anyway, just like you felt nothing before your birth), but you will be Free. Discard the opiate of the people and join the reality.

Hi RL,
Actually, I have discarded the opiate and joined the reality. Only we disagree on what the nature of reality is.

Your first statement, again, is a blanket statement of opinion, with a lot out there to contradict it.

You say
How else can you explain...?
If you really want, I can explain those things. if you are just going to respond with more opinion statements without knowing the explanations we actually give for the things that you see, then it's not worth responding. But they can be explained, I assure you, and make perfect sense within the context of the worldview. You simply haven't heard those explanations yet.

FWIW, I do find the nominal Christianity of some Russian leaders (for the sake of currying favor with the populace) to be repulsive. I can only hope they will get enough exposure to come in to true faith from the hypocrisy of nominalism they are engaged in. But there are leaders who are sincere, as well. You can't just lump them all together, and neither can you know, generally speaking, what is in their hearts.


They know better than you and me what power a religion is.
You seem awfully sure of what other people know. On what basis do you know the extent of my knowledge?

Do you know exactly what a dogma is? And how it can be applied to any unquestioned belief, regardless of whether that belief is in regards to a religion or not? That everyone operates on the basis of certain dogmas, or unquestioned truths?

I hope none of that is taken as offensive. It's just that precision thinking, where every statement uses precise language and clear definitions, and is backed up by conscious knowledge of what exactly one's dogmas are and why they are unquestioned, is a learned skill, and I only really began learning it as I was turning 40. It's amazing to me that I spent so long just accepting terms and definitions supplied by schooling and the mass media.

DDT
29-06-2009, 22:11
Hi DDT,
I'll agree with you that the given text does not specifically say or necessarily always mean "taxes". However, it does mean that we need to admit, with discernment, what Caesar, so to speak, DOES have a right to demand,
Jesus doesn't say exactly what Caesar has a right to demand! Basically He said, "If" it is Caesars, then give it to him."

Well, some would argue that NO income taxes are "caesars" in the USA since the Constitutional Amendment was clearly not ratified in Congress according to law.

If You say that Jesus meant that we should simply hand over anything asked of us by any more powerful entity, then it goes against the spirit of Christians who stood by their convictions and refused to bend to Caesar's will and who were later eaten by lions in the coliseum for it.

Or perhaps you think that Jesus meant that when somebody (with some secular authority) comes up to my family and decides to rape my wife that I should stand by idly and watch.

That is the extension of what you are telling me.

Well, I say that if this is what Christians teach then they teach the most vile immorality and no wonder that the early Vikings put Missionaries to the sword for preaching corruption to their way of life.





and I submit that no Christian saint has stood up against civil authorities regarding any secular question.
Martin Luther is just ONE of those who stood up to the civil authority of the Roman Church. The church was all powerful just like caesar. By your definition of Jesus' words Luther should have done as he was told and for instance kept on receiving money to the Church's coffers from sinners for forgiving their sins.



So no, I don't think a good Christian, in most reasonable circumstances that we can imagine, should withhold taxes. The exceptions would have to be extraordinary and/or catastrophic. Since you offer an extreme and catastrophic example, in that case, of course you're right. But frankly, that case doesn't really exist. We don't live in ancient Carthage.
You will find many Christians believe that in fact they do have good cause to not pay taxes and that we do in fact live in extreme times. They will say that abortion is the killing of innocent babies and that our taxes to Caesar are used in part to help fund this killing!

Their are clearly times to stand up to government especially if you DON"T have a dictator. We the People are the government!

Their are clearly times to stand up and pick up a gun. Even Jesus allowed the Disciples to carry swords for self protection.

rusmeister
30-06-2009, 07:30
You haven't actually thought about what I said. From what I said, IF you thought about it, you would see that I specifically said

no Christian saint has stood up against civil authorities regarding any secular question. They saved their civil disobedience for the defense of the Faith, not the protection of our worldly (and temporary) goods.

Defending the Faith does include things specifically commanded; and the martyrs who chose death were defending the Faith. Saying that I was suggesting otherwise just reveals a lack of thought on my words. If it's not obvious, I apologize. So that and your rape scenario are absurd. I am suggesting nothing of the kind. It's a strawman argument that does not deal with what I actually said.

My apologies on not clarifying sainthood and who has the authority to do so. I should have said "no Orthodox Saint" (which includes saints recognized by other Churches that were part of the One Church before the Great Schism (1054).

From my POV, Martin Luther was at that time part of a Church that had already gone wrong.

I will say that if abortion becomes the law of the land (nationwide) and is tax-funded then it WILL be time to take a stand on taxes because it will become a spiritual question. That happens to not be the case - yet. But that time is coming, and soon, I'm afraid.

DDT
30-06-2009, 11:58
Well, Russ i don't exactly expect anyone to be a winner in this one! I brought it up to demonstrate how hard it is to make heads or tails of the New Testament. Anything can be interpreted to mean anything it seems. Paul at times seems like a lunatic. It was canonized by a corrupt church and even King James who translated the famous edition was purported to be a despot and a homosexual. None of the scholars and experts see eye to eye. God didn't answer the prayers of 6 million Jews so why should he answer mine? The only thing that makes sense is the story of the thief on the cross. Jesus said God would accept him because even though he was weak, he deep down believed in the side of Good. Paraphrased, of course!

Korotky Gennady
30-06-2009, 15:17
I have edited Wikipedia.......scary ain't it?scary... it is. :D

Please, never do it again.

rusmeister
30-06-2009, 15:39
Well, Russ i don't exactly expect anyone to be a winner in this one! I brought it up to demonstrate how hard it is to make heads or tails of the New Testament. Anything can be interpreted to mean anything it seems. Paul at times seems like a lunatic. It was canonized by a corrupt church and even King James who translated the famous edition was purported to be a despot and a homosexual. None of the scholars and experts see eye to eye. God didn't answer the prayers of 6 million Jews so why should he answer mine? The only thing that makes sense is the story of the thief on the cross. Jesus said God would accept him because even though he was weak, he deep down believed in the side of Good. Paraphrased, of course!

Actually, we might have some common ground here. If you mean (as you seem to) that it is extraordinarily difficult to understand the New Testament, taken as a whole, then I agree with you. In fact, I find it to be essentially impossible to be sure on one's own that one has correctly understood the meaning of Scriptural text in the context of all Scriptural text. That's why I reject self as a competent authority to do so. It's at that point that the Church begins to mean more than merely a bunch of people hanging out together, but as something consisting not only of living people, but of all, living and dead that has power and authority to teach and pass down the traditions referenced by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15.

Now as to saying that the Bible was canonized by a corrupt Church, I wonder a) how you could then accept the Bible as authoritative at all, and b) if you are not mixing the idea of the Church being corrupt vs individuals in it being corrupt. We already knew that all men are sinners.

I am totally with you on the good thief. That is a critical element of orthodox Christianity.

rusmeister
30-06-2009, 15:54
rusmeister, I must admire your tenaciousness, however, to an atheist, the belief in a god could be best summed up by a quote from John McCarthy:

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."
Thanks, is4fun!
On evidence in any scientific sense, of course I agree. It wouldn't be faith if it could be proved. Where we might disagree is on whether the only truths are those that can be scientifically proved. I deny that science is the absolute measure of our existence.

A thought going through my head a lot lately - the term "PhD" (Doctor of Philosophy) awarded in (AFAIK) ALL fields is so labeled for a reason- in that even science is ultimately governed by philosophy - what one sees to be the ultimate nature of the universe. I would include theology in that understanding (over the desperate objections of materialists;)) - all learning is dependent on what we see as true and all facts are interpreted through a worldview.

I wonder if you saw the link I posted to the non-partisan PBS program on the question of God. The Question of God | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/)
(Click on "The Program")
It centers on the lives of Freud and Lewis. At the very least, I think it gives the atheist a clear understanding that faith can also be held rationally. Us believers always knew atheists were rational. :)
Since it does not take a given position, I think you would find it both fair and interesting. I certainly learned a few things about Freud.

Russian Lad
02-07-2009, 02:52
But there are leaders who are sincere, as well. You can't just lump them all together, and neither can you know, generally speaking, what is in their hearts.


There are? Give me a few Russian names from today's politics.

robertmf
02-07-2009, 02:57
We need a few moslems/islamists kicking in here. Anybody know any willing to participate in fire & brimstone talk ?

rusmeister
30-07-2009, 20:16
There are? Give me a few Russian names from today's politics.
Hi, RL!
Sorry about the delay...

Alexander Krutov
General Ivashov
Sergei Glaz'ev

just for a few names...

I may not agree with their politics - there are a lot of things you can disagree on and still be Orthodox, so comments on their particular politics are probably out of line - unless they go against the teachings of the Orthodox Church. But the fact that such people do exist does indicate that the concepts of sincere belief (as something to be acted on rather than merely an intellectual exercise) and Russian politicians are not mutually exclusive.