Sharing the nature of God

Hi Bob!

Glad you’re back; hope you’re refreshed!

Before I give any studied response to your reply I want to tackle you about what appears to me to be your misapprehension of Stoic ‘apathy.’
I have taken the liberty of posting you the following excerpt from, Self-sufficiency and Power: Divine and Human Agency in Epictetus and Paul Troels Engberg-Pedersen, dealing with the matter.

Another formulation that comes back again and again is that of ”willing things exactly as they occur” (e.g. 1.12.15: hekasta houtô thelein hôs ginetai). Quite often the relationship with God is sounded too, e.g. in the passage just quoted where Epictetus continues: ”And how do they occur? As He that ordains them has ordained (hôs dietaxen auta ho diatassôn)”. Thus another synonymous formulation is this (2.17.22): ”Do not will anything but what God wills” (mêden allo thele ê ha ho theos thelei).
This is of course the famous Stoic doctrine of apatheia. It has the usual radical consequence of a stark disengagement in relation to the world.
size=75 Do you not rather render thanks (eucharisteis) to the gods that they have allowed you to be superior (epanô) to all the things that they did not put under your control (epi soi), and have rendered you accountable (hypeuthynos) only for what is under your control? (33) As for parents, the gods have released you from accountability; as for brothers, they have released you; as for body, they have released you; and for property, death, life. (34) Well, for what have they made you accountable? For the only thing that is under your control – the proper use of impressions.[/size]
Note here the list of ”externals”: parents, brothers, body, property, death, life. Clearly, Epictetus has chosen the things that are most highly valued in the ordinary valuation of things to make his point that none of these things is of ultimate concern to the person he is talking about, the truly human being. It is very important not to be misled here. The point is certainly not that the truly human being will not care about those things. On the contrary, they are precisely the things he does care about. Only, his ultimate concern is that he cares about them in the proper way. Thus in an interesting passage that would deserve more extended analysis, Epictetus discusses how, within his scheme of things, a person may be ”affectionate” (philostorgos), that is, love other human beings. That is possible, he claims (3.24.58 ), without giving up the principle of not depending (kremasthai) on anything other than oneself (ex allou). Take Socrates, Epictetus’ revered hero.
size=75 Did not Socrates love his own children? Yes, but as a free person (eleutheros), as one who remembers that it was his first duty to be a friend to the gods (theois einai philon).[/size]
The same is true of another of Epictetus’ heroes, Diogenes.
size=75 Come, was there anybody that Diogenes did not love, a man who was so gentle (hêmeros) and human-loving (philanthrôpos) that he gladly undertook all those troubles and physical hardships for the sake of the common weal (hyper tou koinou tôn anthrôpôn)? But what was the manner of his loving (ephilei pôs; )? (65) As became a servant of Zeus (hôs tou Dios diakonon edei), caring for men indeed (kêdomenos), but at the same time subject unto God (tôi theôi hypotetagménos).[/size]

I do hope you will take note and revise your apparent misapprehension of Stoic apathy. I again at the risk of angering you, emphasise Engberg-Pedersen’s very just and accurate appraisal/understanding of the concept:
“[size=100]It is very important not to be misled here. The point is certainly not that the truly human being will not care about those things. On the contrary, they are precisely the things he does care about. Only, his ultimate concern is that he cares about them in the proper way[/size].”

Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks, I did have a relaxing time – although I’m back in the midst again now. Hence the late reply.

Thanks for taking the trouble. I do have something against what I would term as a fatalist attitude and tend myself to see if there is anything I can change before accepting things “exactly as the occur“, let alone “willing“ them. I see a number of things as a challenge presented to me, calling on me to rise to the challenge, whilst still accepting an outcome that doesn’t suit me if it isn’t avoidable.

The mystic is not disengaged from the world, but in fact very much engaged in what occurs here. We see the incarnation taking place in believers and in particular, Maranatha fulfilled when the sons of God are revealed. Asking God to come into the world means to ask him to be born into ourselves, giving our bodies up to be vessels of his holy presence, allowing him to work through us. We should obey God before we obey man.

Of course the things I cannot control I am not accountable for. When parents are no longer accountable as parents, they become brothers and sisters. The Jewish view is that the body is not the “grave of the soul“ but that the unity of body and soul is a God-given reality. These “externals“ as you term them, are in communion with or part of the “true human being“ and to be loved, not just to be cared for. However, they must be loved not in an infatuated manner, but in a manner befitting them - but the love of God is selfless.

Jesus clearly called us to service to one another. This is what is missing in our modern society and even more so the more individualistic we become. Therefore a stoic attitude may often be the attitude we assume, subtly altered to serve our selfishness, turning away from those who need us and groan for redemption. Therefore, you may be right that “pure“ Stoicism may be something else, but in a modern society, I have my doubts about whether it would be acknowledged.

Shalom

Hi Bob!

Sorry about the late response.

I do think that Jesus, (assuming such a person actually existed,) would have known well of and studied early philosophy, including Stoicism. His own teaching, the words attributed to him by Mark, Matthew, and others, was not simply about Jewish ceremonial laws and the suchlike. We’re talking about a man who was visited by three wise men at his birth, who, if he had existed, would have been looking to universal rather than parochial ends. Jesus was without any doubt looking at mankind generally, not just the Jews.

Jesus was concerned with the grievous sin of hypocrisy in the Jewish Church. (Not only in Mark, 7. 14-23, is this apparent but in at least three other sections of the N.T.) He is not pussyfooting with the scribes and Pharisees, there is no polite discussion with them, he is condemning them outright for their gross hypocrisy.

But I am not interested in the matter of hypocrisy, nor am I interested in the traditions of the elders. An understanding of such matters may help to contextualise and throw light on obscure texts, but I would claim there is nothing obscure about Jesus words, to the effect that, wickedness comes from within the man and cannot be blamed on externals. And this is not only a Stoical but also a widespread view among the ancients.

I do not wish to quibble over the various meanings of words, such as, ‘defiled,’ or, ‘adverse effects,’ for it’s quite obvious to me that a man who is wicked is very misfortunate. But I really must attack you, Bob, on the alarmist piece of rhetoric in which you remark, (in apparent innocence,)

“I can’t understand you saying that the only adversity a man can suffer is what he brings upon himself – in the sight of millions of victims of atrocities.”

Really, Bob, ‘millions of victims of atrocities’ sounds to me to have come from the same school of propaganda as, ‘weapons of mass destruction!’

So too the self-respecting Stoic.

Again, Bob, this is virtually Stoicism; although it is important for the Stoic, (and, I would claim, Jesus understands this,) that he differentiate between what belongs to him and what does not. The only thing that really belongs to a human being, according to the Stoic, is his innermost moral choice. (Render unto Caesar. . . etc…)

That’s all I’m going to say, Bob. I think we have a good deal more in common than we know.

Best wishes,

Peter

Hi Peter,

Death Toll	         Event/ Dates

55,000,000 Second World War (Some overlap w/Stalin. Includes Sino-Japanese War and Holocaust) 1937/39-1945
40,000,000 China: Mao Zedong’s regime. (incl. famine) 1949-76
20,000,000 USSR: Stalin’s regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 1924-53
15,000,000 First World War (incl. Armenian massacres) 1914-18
8,800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21
4,000,000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-37
3,000,000 Congo Free State [n.1] (1900)-08
2,800,000 Korean War 1950-53
2,800,000 2nd Indochina War (incl. Laos & Cambodia) 1960-75
2,500,000 Chinese Civil War 1945-49
2,100,000 German Expulsions after WW2 1945-47
1,900,000 Second Sudanese Civil War 1983-(99)
1,700,000 Congolese Civil War [n.1] 1998-(99)
1,650,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge Regime 1975-79
1,500,000 Afghanistan: Soviet War 1980-89
1,400,000 Ethiopian Civil Wars 1962-92
1,250,000 East Pakistan: Massacres 1971
1,000,000 Mexican Revolution 1910-20
1,000,000 Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
1,000,000 Nigeria: Biafran revolt 1967-70
917,000 Rwandan Massacres 1994
800,000 Mozambique: Civil War 1976-92
675,000 French-Algerian War 1954-62
600,000 First Indochina War 1945-54
600,000 Angolan Civil War 1975-94
500,000 Decline of the Amazonian Indians (1900-99)
500,000 India-Pakistan Partition 1947
500,000 First Sudanese Civil War 1955-7 2
450,000 Indonesia: Massacre of Communists 1965-66
365,000 Spanish Civil War 1936-39
350,000 Somalia: Chaos 1991-(99)
400,000 North Korea: Communist Regime 1948-(99)
175,057,000 Total

I can’t explain it any better than giving you the figures.

Shalom

Hi Bob!

Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Peter

Hi Bob!

There is no problem in the world, Bob, but there is a great problem in your heart and soul. That is what you have to overcome, that is the cross you have to bear.

God knows best, Bob, not you.

Respect,

Peter

Hi Peter,

there is both, there is a great problem in my heart and soul - and problems in the world. I cannot be oblivious of it. Maybe it is just your terminology, since I see we have a lot in common, but I cannot ignore the troubles of the people I have to do with. Of course I have a professional stance which also protects my soul, but I acknowledge the troubled heart by addressing it in my professional capacity.

As a Christian, I also address the spiritual problems with the same inner distance but also with an outward closeness, a warming hand, an embrace, with eye contact and understanding. Perhaps you mean this.

Shalom

The only problem I have with Christianity is it doesn’t make sense. lol.

I mean, what about all the people that lived before Christ? What about all the people in the rest of the world that don’t even have any conception of God, ie. the Chinese. What about them? I’m sure Christianity has a nifty little fix for this, such as “they will all receive the oppurtunity to accept the teachings of Christ after death” or something to that nature. But that’s not logical. Not trying to put down Christianity, I can’t blame people for wanting to explain their world. After all, life is pretty weird isn’t it? I mean, here we are, what the hell is up with that? But I think what a lot of people don’t think about it the alternative, what would be the opposite of the current status of life. Such as, what it would be like to know everything, and live in this world, it would be pointless, like reading a book you’ve already read. I think what makes the most sense is that we are God, but we’re pretending we’re not. It just seems like people just take the basic assumptions of their culture and never question them. It’s easy to find out how your basic assumptions might be totally wrong, but that requires that you compare them to other cultures, and all to many people aren’t willing to step outside their sphere of knowledge. It’s expectable, but when they put a mark on something and say “this is the way!”, “you will be damned if you don’t kiss god’s ass!” it just pisses me off.

Hi torrentfields

Perhaps in future you could address the subject at hand and not start your own subject in the middle of another one.

I think you are assuming, as many do, that Christianity is the breed of piety you have come to know. I have very often posted here that there are reasons for not being a Christian. That is one of the reasons why I seek to reveal the spirituality behind Christianity, which is inclusive by nature, not exclusive. Whilst the hope of resurrection is very present, the teachings of Christ have to do with life now. Christ is understood by Christians as the turning point in Jewish piety with regard to God’s presence. No longer need people call for God to „tear apart the heavens and come down“, for He is here, in Christ, in you and in me. That is how we share in the nature of God, by being his image.

I would differentiate and say that we are not God, but that God should be allowed to work within us. People should be able to “see” God at work in the Church – which is unfortunately not always the case. I also think you are right about life needing explanations and that it isn’t conceivable to live a life without surprises.

I agree that some Christians are counter-productive in their approach to people outside of their traditions. They often give the impression you have expressed, although I’m sure that they generally don’t mean to. As for being intellectually lazy, that isn’t something that is only a characteristic of religious people. Although people in our countries are given the chance to educate themselves, very few do more than they need to get through.

On the other hand, the exclusiveness of some Christian beliefs do lead those Christians to remain within their own assumptions and rarely question themselves. Their trip to church seems to serve only the purpose of confirming what they already assume.

Shalom

but this totally ignores the greatest christian expansion in history…

at the very least 8 million butchered in the name of manifest destiny and the figure is probably closer to 40 million (and some estimate as many as 140 million)… the europeans never counted, they were too preoccupied being christian

but what are a few million slaughtered heathens when compared to the righteous glory of the white christian european flexing his loving christian sword (oh wait, wasn’t that jesus himself?)

users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America

but I digress…

it is bloody amazing what the “history books” decide to omit.

-Imp

If the history books didn’t omit such information then schoolkids would actually know what their predecessors did and might no longer be satisfied spending their lives pumping gas and playing tetris and might demand higher standards of government. As it we demand and receive quite low standards of government…

Hi Impenitent,

The numbers are just those from the 20th Century and are not complete of course, I just wanted to show what I meant by “millions of atrocities” - however, look again, there are millions of “slaughtered heathens” on the list.

Shalom

Hi Bob! (And all!)

Yes, we should not, either, forget all the natural disasters and calamities that have resulted in the loss of entire cities and peoples.

But really, Bob, this shared nature of God, a shared symbolism of the highest order, is epitomised in the wheel of fortune/providence.

If anything it is surely this metamorphic-centric nature of the cosmos that we humans should align ourselves with in the final analysis.

Of course, it is not easily done: Jesus was just one who has been crucified for telling the truth!

As Caesar rode around on his chariot, triumphant, waving to the crowds, there was a slave whose job it was to whisper in his ear, ‘Remember master, you are mortal,’ and we, the living, should bear in mind that this life does not last long, perhaps, in other words, we are often too easily carried away with what we regard as reality.

Those who understand the saying, all is illusion, know the truth, but nevertheless know the duties they are bound to perform whilst dressed in that ‘cloak’ that is called, ‘human being.’

All the best,

Peter

Hi Bob

Hope you’re well.

Sorry I don’t have much to do with ILP these days.

I’m simply writing to you.

I was surfing and came across this:

“Of all the external regulations of the old law defining the cases in which a man was considered to have defiled himself, Jesus said: Know all of you, that nothing from outside can defile a man, only what he thinks and does can defile him.”

which supports my argument,

in the following:

faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard. … mmary.html

all the best

Peter

and just thought I’d pass it on to you

well not all Christians are like that. for me, it just takes knowing what God was doing before Jesus came (or rather, before He sent Him lol). Israel was considered God’s chosen people, and at that point, He knew that fully expressing their situation would be too much for a people like that, and He still could communicate His commands through prophets, etc. but when they took it to the extreme, ignoring what God implied by certain things, then He was forced to step in.

many people were saved before Christ, but that’s because they didn’t need Him at that time to get to God. the way the Jews ended up, they somewhat distorted that way, blocking the real way of humility and servanthood, so God had to take action.

Hello Peter,

Yes, I think I have moved closer to your argument too. Thanks for the reply.

Shalom

Bob,

You’re very welcome!

Peter

Hmmm, 0.175 billion, out of 6…

0.02916

Out of our 6 billion people, within the time range of over a life time, you’re basically talkin’ about 3% of people dieing in armed conflict.

If these statistics remain constant, and I don’t join the military/live in a troubled state, I consider my chances of death-by-armed-conflict to be close to 0%.

Despite the religious tendancy to say that humanity is so “evil”, and life is so awful, I don’t believe you.

The moralist bible “wisdom-literature” was, in many ways, a reaction to a diseased, dieing, corrupt culture. Ofcourse these people are going to come up with some sort of wacked-out idealist world-view, but does that make it right, even if people deside to preach it?

Dan,

go back to the rant house …

Shalom

Humanities problems don’t exist because we are not christian enough. Humanities problems have to do with government, ecology and genetics.

Anyone who thinks they are God’s chosen one, will soon go mad.