- No, I’m not advocating suicide… well, maybe I am, in a way.
For a person cynical of religion in general, it's refreshing to see religious people asking real questions.
Have you read Camus' work? (I have no idea what I expect to hear when I ask this, but:) What do you think about it and about his philosophy in general?
Sorry for the delay, I'd been keeping this comment handy to reply but got side-tracked. I started to read The Plague some years ago and really liked it (despite the unpleasant subject matter), but ended up setting it down for some reason and never got back to it. I'm actually reading The Myth of Sisyphus now, when I can spare a moment to get into it. As for his philosophy generally, I'm afraid I can't say much. Existentialism is interesting overall, but sometimes I think it gets too bogged down in the literary aspects than the practical ones. To me, a philosophy is only useful insofar as it improves once's life. Of course, what "improves" means in this context can itself be a philosophical question. Strangely (or not), I find that as I get older, I'm less interested in things like existentialism (or epistemology more generally), and am spending most of my time thinking about ethics.
Others have explored the idea before him, and I'm sure others will explore it after him, but Reza Aslan's book Zealot looks into this idea. I haven't read the book, and I'm not really intrigued enough by the idea to want to read the book, but it's there and people seem to enjoy it.Jesus was NOT the soft-spoken, wouldn’t-harm-a-flea guy the culture makes Him out to be.
It depends on translation.
There's also this film, bringing fiction into (purported) history. How do you feel about the idea that Jesus did not exist, that he was a character or an inaccurate description of a real person?
Dala and I bantered around about your question a bit today. I don't think either of us really have the credentials or the background knowledge to really discuss the idea substantially or authoritatively, but it was a fun conversation. We talked a bit about whether or not a cultural, political, and religious movement as long lasting, far reaching, and impactful as Christianity could exist if it was all centered around a person that didn't exist, how trustworthy oral traditions are in regards to historical accuracy, how close in geological and temporal history written documents about a man should be to be considered to be trustworthy, etc. You might be interested to know that similar questions have been brought up about other religious figures. In regards to Jesus though, the consensus is pretty much overwhelming that he did exist, there's evidence to suggest as much, but the true picture of who he is and what he may or may not have done is hard for us to ascertain to any concrete degree. As for me personally, I do believe that he existed and was a prophet.
CARS: "If he who comes to me does not love me more than his father, his mother..." NRT: "If someone comes to me and does not hate his father, his mother..."
You might also want to ponder a bit about detatchment. Some questions to think about. How does it enable you to serve your fellow man? How does it enable you to expand yourself? How does it enable you to examine and survive the difficulties of life? Edit: Since I'm throwing Wikipedia links around, you might also be interested in considering things through the lens of Stoicism as well, especially as threads of it can be found in Christian thought.
You mean, from the perspective of the article? I don't agree with it (which isn't to say I disagree with it, either), but I'd like to answer those questions to explore the mindset. You dedicate yourself to a cause, whether it's Jesus' teachings, a charity or even a software company's mission to better the world through their best means. As such, you succeed in improving lives of fellow men to whom you deliver your work. In dedication to the cause, you learn how to be a better person to deliver your work. In the adventures that (usually) surround following a mission, you end up meeting people you wouldn't have met otherwise, and they can give you perspective that's priceless because it wouldn't have arrived to you any other way. That said, one's self is irrelevant in the equation. One is but a vessel for the idea of making things better. By dedicating yourself to the cause, you find purpose. With purpose, many difficulties become much more bearable because in the end, you know you're going to achieve something great. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.Some questions to think about.
How does it enable you to serve your fellow man?
How does it enable you to expand yourself?
How does it enable you to examine and survive the difficulties of life?
I meant those are questions worth examining on the concept of detachment itself. It ties into the article, because they cover similar themes, but the concept by itself can be pretty deep and profound if it's something you want to explore. You don't necessarily have to look at the subject from a spiritual perspective, if you don't feel inclined (for whatever reason), and still get something out of the practice. So without bringing religion into this, I tend to view detachment in terms of how it can liberate us. To do that, I view attachment as kind of like an anchor. When we anchor ourselves too much to the beliefs that we hold, the relationships we have, the things we possess, and the desires that are within us, we bind ourselves in place. These bindings can prevent us from thinking critically and objectively, limit the decisions we chose to make and the actions we take, and blind us to observing and pursuing what is meaningful in life. Additionally, attachment can cause us to feel grief, anger, confusion, and a whole mess of other emotions that can cause us to act negatively and improperly, causing harm both to ourselves and the world around us. Like everything else in life, it's about moderation. Because our beliefs, our relationships, our possessions, and our desires are all important aspects of our lives, and give us motivation and direction, to turn away from them all completely can cause us just as much harm and suffering as embracing them in totality and without care. There was a person on here before you who once expressed romantic thoughts about poverty and thinking that being impoverished was a noble thing. Quite a few people on here pointed out that poverty itself is cruel and hard and that what this person really desired wasn't to live in a state of poverty, but a state of simplicity. The virtues and benefits are there, but without the hardship and suffering. I don't know how much you know about me, but I like to collect things. I collect a lot of things. Namely books and antiques. I am, by nature, a very materialistic person, and for many reasons I'm seeing the need to grow out of that state. A few years ago if someone proposed the idea that a disaster came and took away all of my possessions, I think it would be safe to say that I would experience a great amount of grief and despair. I can't say how much, because it's hard to know how you'll react in a situation until it happens. Today though, I'd like to think I'm doing better. I'm slowly decluttering, selling some stuff, giving away others, and making tough decisions about what is and isn't worth holding onto and why I feel that way. I think if a disaster came today and took away all of my possessions, I'd still feel grief and despair, but I'd like to think and I certainly hope, that it'd be less than what I would have felt just a few years ago. That there, is a simple, tangible example of the liberating power of detachment.You mean, from the perspective of the article?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
First of all: what a fine design for the essay. Did you read the article? It's not about suicide: it's about sacrificing oneself in service of something bigger (in this case, Jesus and his teachings).