Textkit Logo

My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Lumen_et_umbra » Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:00 am

(I had thought of this before I heard of Sigmund Freud's law.)<br /><br />Some time ago, while sitting pondering, I had a thought: The single, most fundamental rule, upon which every other rule of human behaviour is predicated, is my rule, with the apt appellation, "The Law of Dividends". <br />This law states that nothing CAN be done that isn't within certain parameters of return for oneself. To attempt to violate the law is to be consonant with it. This, however sacriligious as it may sound, applies even to Jesus (although, what he may or may not have done approaches violation of this law much more than any act of any man in history). <br /><br />Here it is - in the form of several analogies - more or less:<br /><br />If a religious man helps the poor or the needy, he either does this for a belief in some form of reward in the afterlife, or for the naturally good feeling made manifest to him during or after the act (perhaps rewards from God as well, though conjecture given my knowledge of religion).<br /><br />(doing the act to avoid punishment, while not really a great reward, is a reward none-the-less.)<br /><br />Jesus, if he was indeed the son of God (I am not expressing a belief either way on this issue, as not to offend anyone), suffered for everyone because:<br /><br />a. He loved us, and in helping those whom he loved, had happiness himself.<br /><br />b. To not have helped us (given religious belief) would have condemned him to suffering (either because of a punishment from God, or because of his love for us)<br /><br />If a parent helps his child at a huge pecuniary loss - or at another form of loss - he/she still experiences the happiness of helping his child, whom he loves.<br /><br />If a person attempts to violate this law, he does so to vaunt himself, and in order to prove me wrong, thus a reward of some kind ensues.<br /><br />Can any man, not loving, not expecting a reward of any kind in any degree, and being entirely cavalier in regards to the fate of a man, show mercy upon him and help him? <br />(Note: the act cannot be accidental. However an accidental act of kindness comes closer to the violation of the law than most other acts.)<br /><br />If God did not love us, would he ever do anything to help us, not believed his aid to be a benefit to himself in any wise?<br /><br />I have not been able to concieve of a scenario in which this law is violated. I believe this law is hardwired into the mind, and is not immutable under any circumstances.
phpbb
Lumen_et_umbra
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:12 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby thomist44 » Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:07 am

As you said (and as all Christians believe) Jesus is God. And you said that Jesus suffered because he loved us or because he would have suffered some punishment EXCEPT for a few facts you overlooked. ONE, Jesus is God and u said that God would punish Jesus thus punishing himself?? Doesn't work. Jesus is God and is therefore perfect and can not err and does not NEED to love us nor even NEED for us to exist. God is perfect (in feeling thinking etc.) THERFORE if he had not helped us he would have felt no worse than if he had. And in helping us he felt no better or worse than before. THAT which is perfect can not change. THUS JEsus did break the law. However, I agree that this law is immutable in fallen human nature....THANK YOU
phpbb
thomist44
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:34 am
Location: Orange County, California

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Keesa » Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:18 pm

[quote author=thomist44 link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4575 date=1061442423]<br />ONE, Jesus is God and u said that God would punish Jesus thus punishing himself?? Doesn't work. Jesus is God and is therefore perfect and can not err and does not NEED to love us nor even NEED for us to exist. God is perfect (in feeling thinking etc.) THERFORE if he had not helped us he would have felt no worse than if he had. And in helping us he felt no better or worse than before. <br /><br />I would (tentatively) disagree with this statement. I think that God does need us-perhaps, to roughly quote a passage of C.S. Lewis that I can't seem to find, He that had no need created need of us within Himself... I haven't quite worked out where I stand on this matter yet, but I do believe that God needs us. I think He made us capable of breaking His heart so that we could choose not to. <br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />Quote from Lumen_et_Umbra: <br /><br />Jesus, if he was indeed the son of God (I am not expressing a belief either way on this issue, as not to offend anyone), suffered for everyone because:<br /><br />a. He loved us, and in helping those whom he loved, had happiness himself.<br /><br /><br />I believe you are right here, in a way. I don't think I would say that Jesus's sufferings brought him happiness in the way we think of it. In fact, his descision to die for us brought him intense agony, as you can see if you take Luke's account of the night in the Garden of Gethsemane literally, as I do. (Even approaching it from a conjectural standpoint, crucifixtion is not the sort of thing that brings happiness in the way we tend to think about it.) I believe that the agony continues for him even to this day, as God is outside of time. But-I think that He has rewards, on a much deeper level. There is, I think, a sort of satisfaction, or pleasure, that comes from giving a gift. There is also the knowledge that he can now have his beloved Church with him for all eternity. I am one of his rewards, although it's a very odd idea to me. <br /><br />In short, I agree with your theory that giving his life for mine brought him rewards of some kind (although it also brought him a great deal of pain.) <br /><br />b. To not have helped us (given religious belief) would have condemned him to suffering (either because of a punishment from God, or because of his love for us)<br /><br />Because of his love for us, not to have helped us would have condemned him to suffering. <br /><br />These are things that I find myself able to believe without completely understanding. God is perfect and complete and lacks for nothing; yet God needs us, needs me, and somewhere in that paradox is one of the greatest truths of Christianity. <br /><br />Keesa
phpbb
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Lumen_et_umbra » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:26 am

1. There are a number of religions which hold that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are separate beings (Not to say that they are poly-theistic religions.)<br /><br />2. My arguments really had little to do with religion.
phpbb
Lumen_et_umbra
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:12 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby benissimus » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:57 am

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4554 date=1061431236]<br /><br />This law states that nothing CAN be done that isn't within certain parameters of return for oneself. To attempt to violate the law is to be consonant with it. This, however sacriligious as it may sound, applies even to Jesus (although, what he may or may not have done approaches violation of this law much more than any act of any man in history). <br />[/quote]<br /><br />I don't see how the sacrifice of Jesus is any more an approach towards selflessness than the various other martyrs throughout history. How did he come closer to violating this law than they did?<br /><br />If it is because he did it out of love, then there are certainly many, many people who have given their lives for the sake of love, careless of whatever they might gain in the afterlife.<br /><br />If it is because he did it without thought of compensation, then how can it be attested that even atheists or followers of religions without afterlife can sacrifice their own lives for a cause or person?
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Episcopus » Fri Aug 22, 2003 7:28 pm

I agree. Ask the Pope. God is Omniscient; Omnipresent; Omnipotent. He knows all; He needs nothing; He loves and does not hate. However He can become angry sometimes when people hurt eachother, so He kills the hurters to protect the hurtees (the majority). Thus He is compassionate and loving in a practical industrial manner. He wants nothing from us as He is without nothing; He has everything He is without any desire.<br />Jesus gave His Life for us to save us lowly sinners and all that you can do is belittle his sacrifice, the biggest of all sacrifices!<br />
phpbb
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby benissimus » Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:08 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4679 date=1061580514]<br /><br />Jesus gave His Life for us to save us lowly sinners and all that you can do is belittle his sacrifice, the biggest of all sacrifices!<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />If that was directed towards me, then I was asking what I considered to be logical questions. If you want to turn this into a reverent Ode to Jesus, then this is not the place.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby mingshey » Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:54 am

Wow, religion's a sensitive topic.<br />But as for behavior and reward relationship, I'll take socrates' argument; that you can mis-expect the result of your behavior.<br />and thus you can't really guess one's motive from one's behavior.<br />sometimes i can't explain my own behavior.<br /><br />As for Jesus, i'll only say it is well known amongst bible scholars that he's a prototypical character of egypto-greco-mesopotamian gnostic cults, who's later adopted by jewish cult. You can find the summary of this hypothesis in The Jesus Mysteries and possibly tons of other books similar.<br />
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Keesa » Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:15 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4634 date=1061517477]<br /><br />I don't see how the sacrifice of Jesus is any more an approach towards selflessness than the various other martyrs throughout history. How did he come closer to violating this law than they did?<br /><br />If it is because he did it out of love, then there are certainly many, many people who have given their lives for the sake of love, careless of whatever they might gain in the afterlife.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I think what sets Jesus apart from the others is that he lived a perfect life, in addition to dying an obedient death. You're right, there are a lot of people who died as martyrs, either to God, or to love, or for another reason; there are many, many people who gave their lives so that others might live, etc. <br /><br />Quote from mingshey:<br /><br />As for Jesus, i'll only say it is well known amongst bible scholars that he's a prototypical character of egypto-greco-mesopotamian gnostic cults, who's later adopted by jewish cult. You can find the summary of this hypothesis in The Jesus Mysteries and possibly tons of other books similar.<br /><br />I don't agree with this. For one thing, Jesus never was accepted among the Jewish religion as a whole. (Those Jews who do believe that he was the promised Messiah of Old Testament prophecy are known as Messianic Jews, and I understand that they're in the minority.) You are right, however, about the precursors in many other religions...I can think of the Isis/Orisis idea, for one. I am not quite sure what you mean by "well known among Biblical scholars" or "tons of other books". Admittedly, I've never read The Jesus Mysteries, so I'm a little at sea here... I'm familiar with another book that deals with the topic that (I think! :D) you're dealing with, but unfortunately it was a borrowed book; as I remember, it's called "The Second Babylon." <br /><br />Also, I just wanted to mention this; I use phrases like "he is" and "he lives/lived" because that's what I believe, so that's how I think-NOT because I don't realize that there are other people who believe differently or because I'm trying to offend anyone. It just gets cumbersome to keep typing in, "According to people who believe as I do, what sets Jesus apart..." like so. I'll be glad to do it, though, if it will make this a gentler debate. <br /><br />Keesa
phpbb
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby Keesa » Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:22 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4691 date=1061586484]<br />[quote author=Episcopus link=board=13;threadid=519;start=0#4679 date=1061580514]<br /><br />Jesus gave His Life for us to save us lowly sinners and all that you can do is belittle his sacrifice, the biggest of all sacrifices!<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />If that was directed towards me, then I was asking what I considered to be logical questions. If you want to turn this into a reverent Ode to Jesus, then this is not the place.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I agree with Benissimus here. I think religion can be debated (and it's a lot of fun!), but it has to be handled carefully. If you can state what you believe, and why, and listen and understand when people state what they believe, then I think you've hit on an important rule for debating religion. <br /><br />Don't take offence at other people's doubts and questions, Episcopus. It rarely does anything more than make them mad, and if people start getting mad, then the fun is gone. That's my opinion, anyway. Feel free to disagree! ;D<br /><br />Keesa
phpbb
Keesa
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:59 pm

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby benissimus » Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:28 pm

Good thing this was only a discussion about Jesus and not D'ooge! ::)
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby mingshey » Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:24 am

(I promised not to post on an inflammable topic as religion, but let me call it "a cold scholarly topic" 8))<br /><br />
<br />I don't agree with this. For one thing, Jesus never was accepted among the Jewish religion as a whole. (Those Jews who do believe that he was the promised Messiah of Old Testament prophecy are known as Messianic Jews, and I understand that they're in the minority.)
<br /><br />Yes, I meant the minority by "jewish cult", not the traditional judaism. It's more proper to say "the jewish version of the cult". It was so different in its nature from the judaism and never got popular among jews. But in greek and roman society the cult was so familiar and readily accepted without hesitation.<br /><br />
I am not quite sure what you mean by "well known among Biblical scholars" or "tons of other books". Admittedly, I've never read The Jesus Mysteries, so I'm a little at sea here... I'm familiar with another book that deals with the topic that (I think! ) you're dealing with, but unfortunately it was a borrowed book; as I remember, it's called "The Second Babylon."
<br /><br />The egyptian origin was already suggested since renaissance era, though open discussion of such issue was a taboo in christian europe. But serious students of biblical studies cannot miss it. Freke(author of The Jesus Mysteries) says his work is of no novelty. He only collected and summarized the works of already-present biblical studies.<br /> <br />P.S.<br />James Frazer's "The Golden Bough" is a strong recommendation if you're interested in this topic, tho' I didn't read it myself yet. Beware, nevertheless, it may weigh a good portion of a ton!
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul

Re:My own principle (not based on Freuds)

Postby mingshey » Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:56 am

I was drooling at the amazon site for Frazer's "The Golden Bough" several times.<br />But it seems that the abridged version is in the public domain.<br />The Golden Bough at the Project Gutenberg, or a section by section, more readible version in html: The Golden Bough.<br />And an introduction with the picture of Turner's The Golden Bough"<br /><br />
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul


Return to The Academy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest