From: rotflol2@hotmail.com
On 2025-04-11, Richmond wrote:
> Borax Man writes:
>
>> On 2025-04-08, Richmond wrote:
>>> Borax Man writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-04-07, x wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/25 13:24, oldernow wrote:
>>>>>> In Christian nomenclature, a sinner isn't a person that does bad
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a person, period - where personhood implies a separation
>>>>>> equipped with a will free to act apart from all not-person person
>>>>>> is seemingly separate from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And pride is simply the conceit that such is so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And suffering is ongoing attachment said delusion, which plays out
>>>>>> as an ongoing war between the illusory free-willed being and
>>>>>> ineffable reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a mental illness, clear and simple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all mental is illness inasmuch as it requires a person to
>>>>>> possess it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are 'minds' capable of being 'possessed' by 'angels', 'spirits',
>>>>> 'daemons', or 'demons'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are 'lesser gods' in 'polytheist' religions the same as 'angels' in
>>>>> some Abrahamic religions or is that totally different?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the 'memes' of Dawkins the same as 'angels' or 'spirits' for
>>>>> various religions?
>>>>>
>>>>> If several exorcists were to try to 'expel the demon of atheism'
>>>>> from Dawkins could he fight back with a 'vast barrage of memes',
>>>>> and would that be pretty much the same thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who can really know, who can understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think minds can be possessed, in some way or another. If not
>>>> necessarily by demonic spirits, but by ideas, or thought processes
>>>> which can take over and short circuit other parts of the brain.
>>>> Possession is an apt description, and I'm sure many of us have seen
>>>> people who do appear to have been overcome by "something else" from
>>>> time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Whether they are or are not literall demons, I don't think makes a
>>>> huge practical difference. That person is detached from themselves,
>>>> and operating to something external (a cult, a political idea,
>>>> hedonism), which much be purged (exorcised).
>>>
>>> Jung said the unconscious contains autonomous entities. At the time
>>> the bible was written people didn't know about the unconscious, so
>>> they would have projected it onto the world.
>>>
>>
>> But as we are not consciously in control of our unconscious, it is
>> effectively, another entity inside us. It is "us", but something we
>> cannot control.
>>
>> I think it is more useful to treat the unconscious as something
>> outside of us, that we can shape, influence, exorcise, or the like, as
>> that means we aren't just accepting our bad habits and behaviours, but
>> treating them as something that can be modified, fixed.
>
> That supposes you recognise it as unconscious content. But if you didn't
> you wouldn't have any control and would probably end up putting tin foil
> on the walls to keep it out.
>
> If it is unconscious, how do you recognise it?
My point is that it doesn't really matter, but when people viewed their
thoughts as being externally influenced (ie, being guided by
spirits/demons/God), then they make take measures to seek a direction.
You hear of people 'walking into sin' and praying, and seeking to be
guided by God. This is in a way, shaping your OWN thoughts. If you
pray for forgiveness, for salvation, and endeavour not to sin, you are
changing your unconscious mind, even though you may believe that you are
choosing God over Satan.
But if you are a rationalist, and simply view the unconscious mind as
just that, then you'll probably ignore the consequences and simply treat
it as part of "you" that your behaviour is just the way you are, and
thats how it is. Look at how young people simply accept their mental
confusion, depression, or whatever ilness or deviation as simply their
own personality that others must accept.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
