The Antichrist

[artisticsolution]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon.

This was demeaning and uncalled for, in order for you to place yourself above, which is your compensatory measure in coping with your self esteem. Instead of this, I shall give you what you need below. Though it should come from within.

Huh? How is wishing for your cancer scare/ ball pain to get better soon being demeaning or uncalled for? I don't understand.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon.

This was demeaning and uncalled for, in order for you to place yourself above, which is your compensatory measure in coping with your self esteem. Instead of this, I shall give you what you need below. Though it should come from within.

Huh? How is wishing for your cancer scare/ ball pain to get better soon being demeaning or uncalled for? I don't understand.

Sorry! We have been somewhat adversarial as of late, and I was referring to your meaning, as that of my mental state and not my physical. I apologize for jumping to conclusions as so many do here, even me! I try not to, but not very successful sometimes.

Of course there's always that chance that you were in fact being sarcastic, but I truly believe that, at least you, deserve the benefit of doubt.

I prefer testicle when talking about male gonads. Ball seems to reek of humor, which no man sees when he's kicked in them. I try and deal with sex talk clinically, for the most part, especially when it deals with health issues. Of course if you're comfortable with ball dick, boob and pussy instead of testicle, penis, breast and vulva/vagina, that's OK. I just tend to take their counterparts more seriously, thus I may otherwise sense sarcasm.

I've always absolutely hated boob, as I see absolutely nothing, boobish about any part of a woman's body, to me she has always been a beautiful flower.

[artisticsolution]

Sorry! We have been somewhat adversarial as of late and I was referring to meaning as to my mental state and not my physical. I apologize for jumping to conclusions as so many do here, even me! I try not to, but not very successful sometimes.

Ah! Oh...yeah I can see how it might have seemed like I was being snotty! Sorry!

No worries mate.

[lancek4]

Christian Science has never experienced a life threatening illness.

The name itself smacks of hypocrisy. Just another of many cults.

I agree that nearly every religious institution smacks of hypocrisy ; how about 'catholic' church. Obviously it does not contain me so....
But
Do you not know the story of Mary Baker Eddy, the not-so-much-but-attributed-as-such founder? Often the great idea is messed up a distorted by those who gather it tenets into a church.

[lancek4]

Along or back with N; I shall offer some ideas:
proposition:
The commandments are not 'you really should or need to or have to' laws; they are not 'commanding' anyone to do things. They are 'matter of fact' laws; analogous to physical laws.
For example: "thou shalt have no other god before me".
When a correct understanding of reality is had, the effect for the individual is that he will de facto have no other gods but the true 'god'.

And when this understanding is correct then the individual will not, de facto, go against the other commandments because he will be incapable of doing do; it will be in his or her nature, his or her Being.

He/she will not 'will' this and that but will at all times be this or that. He will not assert but be assertion. He will not transgress morality because his existence is a- or un moral.

Whatchas think bout dem cookies. ?

[lancek4]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out. Which is what being powerful is about i.e. not able to give our weaknesses power and instead confront our thoughts head on without feeling like a victim. N on the other hand....tells us who is to blame for our problems. He tells us we are victims of Christianity. It is almost as if he chides or goads his followers into having no choice to believe him ...or else be part of the 'problem'. I believe N is popular because he is sort of a 'white knight' or savior for victims of Christianity.

Amen to the phychology stuff. And most of the rest.
I have addressed this before, elsewhere in this forum: those who have had trauma will not wish to relinquish it, for it supplies thirt identity. It is much easier to take the psychology route that searches for some truth or some cause of the present in the past. As if if one can find the true object of ones problems and then through some sort of catharthis be relieved of the problem. But I side more with Lacan; there is no object, or rather , the object is the problem indistinguishable from the method of finding its source. It is the problem if the subject-object.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Along or back with N; I shall offer some ideas:
proposition:
The commandments are not 'you really should or need to or have to' laws; they are not 'commanding' anyone to do things. They are 'matter of fact' laws; analogous to physical laws.
For example: "thou shalt have no other god before me".
When a correct understanding of reality is had, the effect for the individual is that he will de facto have no other gods but the true 'god'.

And when this understanding is correct then the individual will not, de facto, go against the other commandments because he will be incapable of doing do; it will be in his or her nature, his or her Being.

He/she will not 'will' this and that but will at all times be this or that. He will not assert but be assertion. He will not transgress morality because his existence is a- or un moral.

Whatchas think bout dem cookies. ?

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out. Which is what being powerful is about i.e. not able to give our weaknesses power and instead confront our thoughts head on without feeling like a victim. N on the other hand....tells us who is to blame for our problems. He tells us we are victims of Christianity. It is almost as if he chides or goads his followers into having no choice to believe him ...or else be part of the 'problem'. I believe N is popular because he is sort of a 'white knight' or savior for victims of Christianity.

Amen to the phychology stuff. And most of the rest.
I have addressed this before, elsewhere in this forum: those who have had trauma will not wish to relinquish it, for it supplies thirt identity. It is much easier to take the psychology route that searches for some truth or some cause of the present in the past. As if if one can find the true object of ones problems and then through some sort of catharthis be relieved of the problem. But I side more with Lacan; there is no object, or rather , the object is the problem indistinguishable from the method of finding its source. It is the problem if the subject-object.

Again with your talking for everyone. You've got it all wrong, at least from my perspective. What you say may be true for some, but not for me, as I actually understand psychology, at least as far as I've gotten.

[lancek4]

Along or back with N; I shall offer some ideas:
proposition:
The commandments are not 'you really should or need to or have to' laws; they are not 'commanding' anyone to do things. They are 'matter of fact' laws; analogous to physical laws.
For example: "thou shalt have no other god before me".
When a correct understanding of reality is had, the effect for the individual is that he will de facto have no other gods but the true 'god'.

And when this understanding is correct then the individual will not, de facto, go against the other commandments because he will be incapable of doing do; it will be in his or her nature, his or her Being.

He/she will not 'will' this and that but will at all times be this or that. He will not assert but be assertion. He will not transgress morality because his existence is a- or un moral.

Whatchas think bout dem cookies. ?

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

[lancek4]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out. Which is what being powerful is about i.e. not able to give our weaknesses power and instead confront our thoughts head on without feeling like a victim. N on the other hand....tells us who is to blame for our problems. He tells us we are victims of Christianity. It is almost as if he chides or goads his followers into having no choice to believe him ...or else be part of the 'problem'. I believe N is popular because he is sort of a 'white knight' or savior for victims of Christianity.

Amen to the phychology stuff. And most of the rest.
I have addressed this before, elsewhere in this forum: those who have had trauma will not wish to relinquish it, for it supplies thirt identity. It is much easier to take the psychology route that searches for some truth or some cause of the present in the past. As if if one can find the true object of ones problems and then through some sort of catharthis be relieved of the problem. But I side more with Lacan; there is no object, or rather , the object is the problem indistinguishable from the method of finding its source. It is the problem if the subject-object.

Again with your talking for everyone. You've got it all wrong, at least from my perspective. What you say may be true for some, but not for me, as I actually understand psychology, at least as far as I've gottenWhat might this understanding be? .

[SpheresOfBalance]

Along or back with N; I shall offer some ideas:
proposition:
The commandments are not 'you really should or need to or have to' laws; they are not 'commanding' anyone to do things. They are 'matter of fact' laws; analogous to physical laws.
For example: "thou shalt have no other god before me".
When a correct understanding of reality is had, the effect for the individual is that he will de facto have no other gods but the true 'god'.

And when this understanding is correct then the individual will not, de facto, go against the other commandments because he will be incapable of doing do; it will be in his or her nature, his or her Being.

He/she will not 'will' this and that but will at all times be this or that. He will not assert but be assertion. He will not transgress morality because his existence is a- or un moral.

Whatchas think bout dem cookies. ?

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

So you're quoting someone, and you, yourself don't fully understand what this, 'correct understanding of reality,' really is?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out. Which is what being powerful is about i.e. not able to give our weaknesses power and instead confront our thoughts head on without feeling like a victim. N on the other hand....tells us who is to blame for our problems. He tells us we are victims of Christianity. It is almost as if he chides or goads his followers into having no choice to believe him ...or else be part of the 'problem'. I believe N is popular because he is sort of a 'white knight' or savior for victims of Christianity.

Amen to the phychology stuff. And most of the rest.
I have addressed this before, elsewhere in this forum: those who have had trauma will not wish to relinquish it, for it supplies thirt identity. It is much easier to take the psychology route that searches for some truth or some cause of the present in the past. As if if one can find the true object of ones problems and then through some sort of catharthis be relieved of the problem. But I side more with Lacan; there is no object, or rather , the object is the problem indistinguishable from the method of finding its source. It is the problem if the subject-object.

Again with your talking for everyone. You've got it all wrong, at least from my perspective. What you say may be true for some, but not for me, as I actually understand psychology, at least as far as I've gotten.

What might this understanding be?

Come on be real, I'll not compose a book for posting here, as surely the substance of psychology is great. I will however take each of your assertions above and address them, if you'd like? or not! Let me know.

[lancek4]

What is this, 'correct understanding of reality,' of which you speak?

I am relating an alternate reading of the commandments and how it might relate to N.

So you're quoting someone, and you, yourself don't fully understand what this, 'correct understanding of reality,' really is?

For one, I was responding to your health thing, and I offered a philosophical/religious idea of Christian Science: that ill health is seen to be a manifestation of a misunderstnding of God.

I forget his/her name, then responded with something about religious hypocricy. about no one with a terminal illness has been healed through CS or something life that,

So I asked if s/he knew about the founder of CS, Mary Baker Eddy.

then I offered her basic tennent: that the commandments are not "you better or else" commandments, but are more life natural laws that occur because they are just that way.

thus, the 1st commandment would be that when one sees the commandments this way, that the 1st commandment would be read as a common sense. That one would not have to make themselves 'obey', for example, say, the laws of gravity, the laws simply function in that way without effort by the agent.

If we apply this idea to this Christian Science view, we have an interesting issue because we then have 'ways of knowing', As opposed to the natural laws, which function regardless of what we know of them. Since, Chrisitan Science is poseing that one would need to understand correctly (The Church is actually called "Church of Christ, Scientist", because in Eddy's view 'science' is meant to connote 'the application of correct understanding'.)

I find such a reading of the commandments interesting.

Yet there is a further dynamic, but i will withhold this for the sake of further discussion if anyone wishes to undertake such an exploration as it relates to N, his "antichrist", and his works in general. If not, then we can get back to discussing personal issues. Or phychology.

PS. I was incorrect in my implication of Mary Baker Eddy, but she did have a bad injury that prompted her to find this 'correct understanding' and thus was 'healed'.

[lancek4]

Hi SOB,

Here's hoping you get well soon. As far as what has happened to you in your past, I know it's hard to fathom...but you must forgive your father for your own sake and move on. Too much punishment you put yourself through by hanging on to your abusive past.

But this is exactly why I hate psychology. It makes us focus too much on the thought we have been 'harmed.' It almost becomes a game of "who feels the most pain". Causing us to glorify our abusive past and totally devalue our 'happier' side. Almost making our positive side unworthy of any deep insight. I feel N does this too much in his general tone. I also feel that is why he is more popular than K. Because N uses anger to make his point...it is cool in a militant way. K does not do this...K's message is basically the same...only he doesn't blame a particular group. He simply makes a statement and says, "what are your thoughts?' Leaving you to imagine much more and perhaps take on much more personal responsibility. Unlike N...he doesn't give you a way out.

I am not so sure of your synopsis of K here. K often rebukes "those" and "they", he speaks against "philsophers" and does actual take up against "Christians who are not christians".
To me, K doesnt get mad at peoploe or groups (till his later years), he makes fun of them, and is pointing a finger by using one's assertions against one.
I do not see K as asking anyone 'what is your thoughts' nor even implicating the question. I see him as understanding what the thought already is and addressing its silliness and offering a solution in the silliness.
I see both as basically posing the same problem but addressing it in different fashions.
And yes, N is easier to misread and appropriate by those who just want to be mad. K is just to silly for this, and no one want to be silly; we live in a world where you gotta be pissed off and aggressive.

But, we should really move this to another thread, but then the motion might be effected.

[/quote]

[lancek4]

It is obvious not one of you have any idea or experience of what SoB has told you.


SoB... you throw pearls to Swine.


and you call yourselves intellectuals

On the contrary -- and I wasnt even involved in the personal health journey of empathy -- I am an emotionectual.

If one is not prepared for whatever, then dont offer. I am sure SOB is a big boy, and hell: SOB tends to use personal anecdotes integrated with his arguments, and this can lead to some weird interactions and responses.

SoB your only mistake here is you gave too much