|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7553743 - 10/24/07 05:26 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No, it is your problem, insofar as your evidence presupposes that your claims are true. This does not work as a logical proof. You have presented no actual evidence which does not require that your beliefs are factual before being accepted as evidence, thus NO PROOF. 
I can make a statement I believe to be of truth, and then people can challange it. Then I can give both internal and external evidence for the reasons I believe it's true. That's what I have done, and that's what I'll continue to do. You obviously are not paying attention to my posts or the sources I link to, or the nature of this thread. The person who began this thread did not fully give evidence for many of his statements, and I actually challanged him on that.
I don't just spout my beleifs dogmatically with no evidence to back it up, that is a total misconception. I wish people would stop attacking me like this, you see what you want to see and you stick it to me. Why don't you just accept theirs someone here who ha a different world view and way of approaching things, and appreciate it for what you can.
I'm tired of arguing about this. I'm done.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Paul apparently did have Transcendental experiences which empowered his convictions and it was his experiences of being "caught up to the third heaven" of which he writes that express Christian gnosis.
These are exactly the type of totally false, unsubstantiated comments I came in here to challenge.
The experience Paul described first of all, we have very little knowledge, of, he explained that experience wasn't even known whether it was in the body or out of the body. But most importantly, Paul wasn't even referring to himself. He attributed the experience to someone he knew.
Quote:
2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
It's interesting how someone can be so influenced by guilt in your opinion, that he can be made completely blind for several days.
And I am attacked for not procuring evidence for my belief?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'



Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
What you have done here, in your very last post, is what I was asking for in the first place. An actual criticism of points you find contentious on grounds of evidence. This is a legitimate, strong approach. Saying someone is wrong and stupid with no specific critique of the body of thier ideas is not.
Just a little tip - negation is an easier way to prove someone wrong than trying to replace thier view with another. 'You're wrong because you're wrong- here's how,' rather than 'you're wrong because I'm right and we cannot both be right.' The latter is much weaker.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I would have just as much validity in claiming that Greek myths involving Zeus prove that he exists, and is the Father of the pantheon of gods. After all, these stories have been told for thousands of years--they must be true! I can provide links to the historical existence of these stories having been recorded by humans! 
Bares repeating.
You sir of course can believe in the flying spaghetti monster or whatever else. But if your proofs seem irrational or weak they will be challenged here. If you don't like that then that's fine as the Mystery forum is close by. You can say whatever you want to be true and over there, it is.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
You are so wrong about "I knew a man in Christ ..." that you should take up some formal theological study. He WAS speaking of his own experience, and this is generally held by theologians not just Bible college teachers with agendas. I'd do some real theological research on this score since this event has been a pivotal point in my own studies for 30+ years. It figures prominently in the psychology of religion and comparative religious studies, and is one of the examples in R.M. Bucke's 1900 classic text, Cosmic Consciousness. Moreover, almost every solid text on mysticism, Christian and other includes this event. You are completely naive on this subject and whereas I have chosen to not confront your posting directly, I felt compelled to do so here if only because on this point you know absolutely nothing yet profess to criticize me on it. It is the epitomy of Christian gnosis, including the subtle language pertaining to ecstasis [Greek: standing outside of] ("...was caught up to paradise), the nature of which is ineffable ("...He heard inexpressible things...").
Hysterical blindness, precipitated by profound guilt has been documented time and again in the modern era, explored by Charcot, Bleuler and Freud, and 'cured' by hypnosis and psychoanalysis. The phenomenon has undoubtedly been documented elsewhere historically since the human condition itself remains unchanged over the last several millennia http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=981100. A psychoanalysis of Paul via the discipline of psycho-history is not very difficult given the authentic Pauline letters as anedotal evidence. That fact that you do not understand the phenomenon of hysterical blindness simply indicates another area, in addition to Biblical hermeneutics, mysticism and psychology that you are as of yet unable to apply to Biblical writings. Do yourself a favor and cease to entertain the notion that 'blind faith' is going to elucidate the notion of hysterical blindness to you in Paul or in anyone else.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
You are so wrong about "I knew a man in Christ ..." that you should take up some formal theological study. He WAS speaking of his own experience, and this is generally held by theologians not just Bible college teachers with agendas.
No, he was not speaking about his own experience. the words of Paul are very clear that he was referring to someone else. If you determine that he is speaking about himself, you do it on grounds outside of exegesis. If we look at the context of the chapter, we find it very clearly is referring to someone else:
Quote:
5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
Quote:
Hysterical blindness, precipitated by profound guilt has been documented time and again in the modern era, explored by Charcot, Bleuler and Freud, and 'cured' by hypnosis and psychoanalysis.
I am aware of the condition. But you presuppose that Paul had some sort of guilt complex, when you have no evidence of this. The evidence we have shows the very opposite, the reason he was on to damascus in the first place was because he was so zealous and determined to persecute Christians.
And what of the men who were traveling with him?
Quote:
7The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Were they so dumbfounded and crazed by Paul's fit of hysteria that they had auditory hallucinations?
It doesn't fit.
And the most important thing is that all of this conjecture is absolutely groundless. If your interpretation is correct, then Paul's testimony would be absolutely lying. How then, can you after determining his testimony completely suspect, take one part of his testimony as valid, then shun the other part that does not fit your "modern" values? But that is not how exegesis works. That is not how historical studies work to begin with.
To even begin in the interpretation you have, you must first discount the testimony of scripture! Then your interpretation is worthless. But Pauls' testimony is valid, as is all scripture, and real theologians do not apply the false standards of historical analysis that you do.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
And here lies the problem with religion. Everyone interpreting it to their own satisfaction and then telling us it's the fucking truth.
Religion=
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Freud and his students conceived of hysterical symptoms as a product of "ego defense mechanisms," in which psychic energy, generated by unconscious sexual conflicts, was converted into physical symptoms.
freud was a crackpot.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
#7559609 - 10/25/07 03:04 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And here lies the problem with religion. Everyone interpreting it to their own satisfaction and then telling us it's the lalala truth.
Religion=
How dare you assert this interpretation and then tell us it's the truth.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I dare because I know that my truth is subjective. And of course I have God on my side.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
jonathanseagull
Cool!


Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
jonathan_206 said:
Quote:
Freud and his students conceived of hysterical symptoms as a product of "ego defense mechanisms," in which psychic energy, generated by unconscious sexual conflicts, was converted into physical symptoms.
freud was a crackpot.
I continue to hear this more and more as time progresses, because in the same way as the bible, people want to continue to interpret him literally.
--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate



Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 3 days, 16 hours
|
|
Are you suggesting Freud wanted his theories to be interpreted as metaphoric for some higher, inexpressible truth? I always figured Freud meant the theories he espoused to be considered literally, and unlike the Bible I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Could you expand on this?
-------------------- “Strengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that I’ve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I will— and I will have the will, strengthened as I’ll be with contemplation and study— at the crucial moments I’ll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.”
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Lion]
#7559914 - 10/25/07 04:42 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Freudian is all about ego and sexuality, sexuality and ego. And don't forget, the ego rest upon sexuality. And the answers to all or almost all the psychological problems deal with sexuality and little children.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Wow! Spoken like someone who either read Freud & did not comprehend his theories, or who has not read Freud & pretends to grasp his ideas. 
The libido is not just our sexuality, it is our life force. Since everything in life relies upon the life force, it follows that all psychological problems would be based in the libido.
As far as "little children" are concerned, Freud did believe that the starting point of many psychological issues occurs during childhood, when we are at our most vulnerable and impressionable. Duh!
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Your Freudian Purity Test Results You answered "yes" to 29 of 70 questions, making you 58.6% unconsciously pure (41.4% unconsciously corrupt); that is, you are 58.6% pure in the unconscious domain. According to the scoring guide, your unconscious experience level is: Regrettably Normal - Your very existence defies all logic.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7559984 - 10/25/07 05:05 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The libido is not just our sexuality, it is our life force.
No. That's just plain wrong.
Quote:
As far as "little children" are concerned, Freud did believe that the starting point of many psychological issues occurs during childhood, when we are at our most vulnerable and impressionable. Duh! 
Far from most, far from all. We have more psychological issues more from after childhood to death than in childhood alone.
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Quote:
According to Freud, all behavior is motivated by the desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freud conceptualized both these instincts as being powered by a form of internal psychic energy that he called the libido. Libido is the pleasure principle, or basic psychic energy. It can perhaps be considered equivalent ch'i or parana of esotericism and yoga. http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/Freud.html
The roots of most of our psychological problems can be traced back to childhood, though we may not experience these problems during childhood. The foundation is laid, for better or worse, during the first 5 years of life.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7560189 - 10/25/07 06:14 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote: According to Freud, all behavior is motivated by the desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freud conceptualized both these instincts as being powered by a form of internal psychic energy that he called the libido. Libido is the pleasure principle, or basic psychic energy. It can perhaps be considered equivalent ch'i or parana of esotericism and yoga. http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/Freud.html
How simple minded. Everything is motivated by sexual desires or anger. I know that's not true. WHen you say "basic psychic energy" that requires sentience. But "libido" itself is not sentience in itself, it is a function of a sentience.
Quote:
The roots of most of our psychological problems can be traced back to childhood, though we may not experience these problems during childhood. The foundation is laid, for better or worse, during the first 5 years of life.
This has never been proven.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
No. That's just plain wrong.
God almighty I am tempted to flame the ignorance that makes a statement like that and then does nothing to back it up. Stupid is too good a word for this behavior.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (10/25/07 07:05 PM)
|
|