Religious groups that follow Jesus must push to end the exploitation of others for power and profit
Brad Chilcott
Well, alright, maybe:
Recently, my psychologist asked me to consider her assertion that “there is no true altruism” – in other words, no one is truly selfless.
Hmm, maybe we might not gain our ethical guidance from someone in the grip of psychiatric care then, eh?
If he wants to study philosophical questions, possibly a psychologist is not the best choice of tutor.
you should let in more refugees because jesus said to be compassionate in the bible somewhere
no i’m not a christian and i have nothing but contempt for your backward religious beliefs
so yeah, this argument wouldn’t work on me but maybe if I use it on you, you’ll do what I want
My psychologist suggests, as many have, that a sense of living for something greater than oneself has significant mental health benefits and the recognition, respect and influence that comes from peers and society from serving others is – in fact – self-serving.
I think our friend would do well to read Pilgrim’s Progress and if that proves too difficult ( judging by the childishness of his arguments) The Water Babies might help.
Sounds like his psychologist is an Objectivist. A surprising take for the Graun.
Religious groups that follow Jesus must push to end the exploitation of others for power and profit
So cutting down the power of the “courageous” state, then.
When you take away God and any other higher power to provide spiritual guidance, you’re left with the wisdom of therapists, teachers, politicians and celebrities. And you go to therapy sessions, political rallies and TED talks instead of church to fulfill the same purpose.
I’ve read the Bible and, although there are some wise sayings in it, more generally it it filled with stupidity and barbarism. I can’t understand where the idea that God is infinitely wise came from. In the Bible he is depicted as an all powerful imbecile with the temperament of a bad tempered toddler.
In the Bible he is depicted as an all powerful imbecile with the temperament of a bad tempered toddler.
It’s a Jewish thing.
Religious groups that follow Jesus must push to end the exploitation of others for power and profit
By abolishing all religious groups. Is there even one that doesn’t try to control its followers and extract cash from them?
In the Bible he is depicted as an all powerful imbecile with the temperament of a bad tempered toddler.
I think this kind of sixth form exegesis is literally what the Monty Python generation took from school (understandably so, when Malcolm Muggeridge and the bish of Southwark decided to berate the young whippersnappers on TV I saw why Baby Boomers found their parents and their shut-up-and-do-as-you’re-told authoritarianism insufferable*).
The Old Testament is about a lot of things, but mostly it’s about God’s incredible patience with Man. Which Man continually responds to by defying God, committing murders, worshipping idols, doing all sorts of bad things while crying “why does God allow bad things to happen? :(“, and so forth. The ancient Israelites were no better than we are, and in some ways we’re worse.
If we think the Increate is ill-tempered, consider the alternatives. If I was the Pantocrator I’d have smited Man into subatomic particles, and/or released a pride of celestial lions on him by now. Saturn’s family meal would be a ladies’ tea party by comparison.
*Also a major inspiration for Pink Floyd
“The Old Testament is about a lot of things, but mostly it’s about God’s incredible patience with Man”
Yeah, but it’s not though, is it.
https://www.evilbible.com/
As anyone with objectivity and a working moral compass can discern, the real hero of the Bible is Lucifer, the angel who – at great personal cost – stands up to the unspeakable evil that is Yahweh.
Imagine Yahweh’s atrocities committed instead by Lucifer. How the Christians would howl and point fingers. But when they are all committed by Yahweh himself? Suddenly there is no act of barbaric injustice which cannot be excused, justified or ignored. A Christian – like a Muslim – is someone who cannot discern right from wrong; even in the most extreme cases.
‘He does these things because he loves us’ is the conditioned reflex of every abused child in history. Perhaps ‘the wisdom of therapists’ is exactly what some people need.
@ wat dabney
Lucifer does not appear in the Bible.
Epic fail!
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-14-12/
But the significant point here is not that you are wrong about the content of the Bible, it is the psychology of your response. Since you can’t and therefore won’t address the irrefutable argument – the endless litany of barbarities and atrocities committed by the daemon Yahweh – you seek at all costs to deflect; to remain in denial at all costs.
If you wish, you can re-read my previous comment and swap ‘Satan’ for ‘Lucifer’. Most Christians maintain that they are one and the same character but, quite obviously, if makes absolutely no difference to the argument.
And the psychologist is correct by some understandings. If being generous helps ones self esteem in some way, then, but some definitions, it ain’t altruistic. of course in modern times many consider it to be altruism to force taxation upon others and then give those proceeds away to others who one considers more deserving.
Being of good standing and respected in ones community is, or used to be, considered “a good thing”, and acts of generosity intended to bolster same are arguably not entirely altruistic.
@WD I’m afraid I have to side with John77 on the fact that “the Adversary” is mentioned in various places in the bible, but never actually named. Especially not Lucifer.
Has to do with a very central theme in many traditions: Names have power. To Name something is giving it power. To use/invoke a Name empowers an entity, and worst case gives it power over you.
And the bible is full of that particular theme. Ad Nauseam even..
The old Jews would most certainly not address the Adversary as the herald of day, let alone use it as its Name. Not even ironically.
It’s one of the titles given to both the Pharaohs and Assyrian/Persian kings, for obvious reasons given their religious setups. Adversaries of the Jews? Yes. They both handed the Jews their asses several times over, until the Romans showed up.
But not the Adversary. And they certainly wouldn’t use a descriptor giving it the power of Kings.
The Adversary in Abrahamic tradition has many descriptors and titles, but its Name ( if it actually has one) would never be written down in a Holy Book to begin with.
That’s, metaphysically speaking, nuclear mushroom territory. You just…. don’t..
@ wat dabney
Isiaiah 14 5
“you will take up this taunt song over the king of Babylon”
The next sixteen verses comprise the taunt-song against the king of Babylon.
Are you simply ignorant or are you deliberately trying to mislead?