Philosophy of love.

[MehGuy]

Some? Many? Most don't think about it at all, but simply experience it.

My conclusion is that the latter is the best approach: just engage with it and be grateful it is possible to experience it and express it, whether it is the product of our evolutionary history, or a gift from your God, or a combination of the two.

Given my past religious experience, I am frankly afraid of not being aware of my own psychology, or what I feel as love.

Ever since I lost my faith I have been hyper introspective. It wasn't until recently that I have begun to realize this very process could be a form of love itself. Before that I viewed this process merely as survival.

I was mainly inspired by Paul Bloom's idea of rational compassion. Before that, I never viewed the act of being rational as a form of love. I hope to expand on this concept in the future and find deeper meaning and love from it.

I have some ideas floating around, but they're still in a very crude state.

Hopeful though, I can finally have a form solid of love that doesn't leave me sick to my stomach.

 

[MehGuy]

I used the term “practicality”, but I could have just as easily have used the word “pragmatic” to describe my family environment growing up. Most marriages are based in pragma in addition to Eros, ludus, and storge.

Interesting. I would like to hear more about why you thought your family and Christian upbringing in general (assuming) was empathy-less? Just seems so foreign to me, especially under a Christian environment.

Despite growing up in a socially Christian conservative upbringing, empathy was valued and encouraged and wasn't seen as unmasculine. Really.. it depends how one can expresses empathy. I don't think I ever saw my father cry, nor appear fragile.

Probably as a result, I have never had issues expressing my feelings. Despite what some feminists and men in toxic masculine environments say. It's never really hindered me, and most women actually find it a turn on. Which makes sense.. even among traditional feminine women. Someone who desires a man who can lead and take charge will want a man who can reflect on his own emotions and the emotions of others. Empathy in men isn't a turn off if it's expressed in a certain way.

Many women love poets and musicians, professions that often require a high degree of empathy.

Most marriages begin with ludus and Eros and end in bedpans, medical appointments, and paperwork. That statement is pragma. Many recent church teachings about marriage have emphasized pragma and philia at the expense of Eros and ludus.

Yes. We used to read Our Daily Bread every night, attend church every Sunday, and we went to Awana on Wednesday. My mom had us practice our Awana verses at home.

I was raised non-denominational as well, though it was in a “Bible Church” setting that emphasized intellectual prowess (scripture memorization, understanding, and application) rather than any sort of empathy or martyrdom glorification.

Ah, ok. Been looking up the history of non-denominational churches. They tend to be more independent and can vary wildly. I know in the church I went to we had a regular member who was even a Catholic.

I wouldn't say my Church was unusually fixated on glorifying martyrdom. It was just a thing that was there, and pretty standard for a lot of Christian cultures. There wasn't anything particularly extreme about my Christian upbringing.

What you are describing sounds more like “charismatic” non-denominational, more in line with Pentecostalism than the more Dallas Theological Seminary-style preaching environment I’ve known. Formalities have varied, I’ve attended three churches with pews and about as many with chairs, but all have plain crosses at the front, no crucifixes, if there was anything on the walls at all.

That sounds fair. Theology was still important, but spirituality probably more so. We had plain crosses too. There wasn't a lot of religious art in my household. The few we did have were uplifting and non-violent.

I do know the Catholic Church has taken some steps to tone down the bloody aesthetics. The psychological harm of such images have been warned about since the late 19th and early 20th century. Even centuries earlier in a less scientific context. I cannot imagine the Christian world hasn't silently taken heed in response.

The ready explanation I was given was that love has to be a choice - in order for us to truly love, we had to be free to not love, and also suffer the consequences of not-loving. What not-love does to us is horrifying and damaging, but it had to exist to allow us to voluntarily commit to the true good of God, and ourselves.



Or as another put it “God wants sons and daughters, not robots.”

Again, this was given to me as a child, I wasn’t left to grapple with the question. God wanted us to be able to love him, and that is why he let us fall and went to the pain of redeeming us. Love is an expensive virtue that comes at a heavy cost.

I was told similar explanations as a child. I cannot say I ever really found them convincing. God could have given us free will without the extreme suffering. Also, heaven sounds like we would revert back to being robots. Or the billions of babies who were aborted or died early who never got to be tested.

In view of that, martyrdom glorification is garbage. The reason the church esteems martyrs is because they proclaimed the Gospel and continued to proclaim the Gospel in the face of corrupt governments that killed them. The reason they are esteemed is because of their stand for the faith, not because of their death. The fact that they did not waver from their testimony of the Truth is authenticated by their death, but you don’t need to suffer a death at the hands of a corrupt government to know that Your faith in the Gospel is real. That idea is absurd. Was Billy Graham martyred? No? Does anyone question his Christianity? Does the church not rightly esteem him for his stand for the faith and his willingness to proclaim the Gospel?

I wasn't taught that the only way Christians could be esteemed was through martyrdom.

I didn't get the impression that martyrdom was just about standing up for the faith, but also as an act of love. To suffer extreme pain and death for God. To imitate Christ on the cross. An emotional process one can experience to learn love on a "deeper" level.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Being tortured and killed for another can be loving and deeply moving. The key thing.. in the proper context.

I hear some Christians say that they see all love through the lens of the cross. What does this actually mean on a psychological level? Could this lead to demented ideas about love? Are some people just hooked on these powerful feelings?

What about my uncle who preached the Gospel at rescue missions and at churches and was faithful to Christ and the Gospel until the end? He died of pancreatic cancer. Does the method of his death make him less of a Christian? I think not.

I agree with this.

However, an important caveat: some abusers are world champion criticizers. In order for criticism to root out abuse, it has to be a two-way street. The criticism must flow freely from victim back to the abuser for that to work. If the abuser is criticizing the victim, that’s not a sign of growth in the relationship.

Uncritical environments allow abuse to thrive; but a critical environment does not prevent abuse either. Criticism becomes insults which turn into threats and punishments, and then we’re back at abuse. True criticism allows the recipient to solve the problem and repair the relationship to the critic; abusive criticism is assigning impossible tasks to people for the purpose of insulting and punishing them for not doing what they cannot do.

Of course, criticism should be a two way street. I also agree that criticism can become abusive too. No style of love is going to be perfect. I am just trying to find tenets of love that point in the right direction. An environment that respects free speech is one such tenet. Sadly one many conservatives and liberals do not value. Even among some so called atheist "skeptics".

I can understand the empathetic urge to want to ban certain speech. Obviously I have less of an issue with banning speech such as name calling and insults that add no substance to an argument. I am mostly worried about banning ideas. Even under the best of circumstances, closing off speech may just lead to inbred thinking.

This post is getting a little long. I will respond to the rest of your post later. I hope my late response times are not too bothersome. This is just a hard topic for me. Although admittedly my mood has been on the upswing since making this thread. Nice to get some of these concerns off my chest.

 

[Robban]

Empathy is a priceless gift.

"Most people do not listen to understand, they listen with the intent to reply.

They`re either speaking or prepairing to speak.

They`re filtering everything through their own paradigms,

reading their auto biography into other peoples lives."

Steven Covey.

 

[linux.poet]

I will respond to the rest of your post later. I hope my late response times are not too bothersome. This is just a hard topic for me.

I understand this on some level. Not too long ago I was doing debates in the science forum and I was suffering “debate lag” where it took me days to respond. Sometimes debating here feels like psychological weightlifting to me. If you push too hard, too fast, you can re-traumatize yourself. Listening to your brain telling “er, this is hard, let’s take a break and come back to it” is actually a good idea.

Now that I think about it, I think I actually did debate retraumatization once, but not on this website. However, that descent into mental chaos felt more like digging up trauma that was already in my system rather than adding more trauma from without. *scratches head* It was like opening a door on the top of a tower and getting surprised by the sudden onslaught of wind. Wind being mental chaos in this case.

Actually, I think I did that twice, but the second time was body chaos instead of intellectual chaos, and so I had a degree of control and could manage the situation a lot better. Log off, emergency trip to a therapist immediately, talk to a friend, join another forum for my questions and issues. But that wasn’t just debate, that was chess re traumatizing, hence the physical aspect of it that dragged all my mind-body issues to the surface.

*blinks* Okay, maybe I don’t actually understand it after all, but at least I’m willing to be patient. Better to take a little more time with your responses than to write a bunch of chaotic posts and lose a rather valuable forum account due to losing control of your mind. Or your emotions, which may be more of what this is.

Empathy is a priceless gift.

"Most people do not listen to understand, they listen with the intent to reply.

They`re either speaking or prepairing to speak.

They`re filtering everything through their own paradigms,

reading their auto biography into other peoples lives."

Steven Covey.

I generally find it easier to empathize with people who have gone through the same experiences that I’ve been through. Frankly, without a common experience, you have to use your imagination to build a solid basis for an empathetic response and it is really hard. Experience is not the obstacle to empathy, it is the bridge that makes true empathy possible.

A child doesn’t have a depth of experience, so an adult demanding that a child empathize with them is just abuse plain and simple. Demanding that the child help them because they need help is also abusive, an adult should be taking care of that child. There’s a difference between training a child to do the laundry so they can do it when they live on their own one day and demanding that the child do the laundry with no help just because the parent is struggling mentally or physically. A child can sense the difference.

Interesting. I would like to hear more about why you thought your family and Christian upbringing in general (assuming) was empathy-less? Just seems so foreign to me, especially under a Christian environment.

Complete lack of emotional communication. The head of household, my father, was an abusive and threatening critic. This has left the entire household basically unable to talk to each other about any honest feelings. You say anything about how you feel, you get criticism of it immediately. You shouldn’t feel that. You shouldn’t think that. The message is clear and obvious.

My and brother learned to relate to each other based on performance metrics. The household is a masterclass in how to respond to criticism.

Me: get angry and fight back. Ignore the criticism, do whatever you wanted to do anyway, and tell dad whatever he wants to hear to get him to get out of the way. (Eventually I took a deep dive and changed up my response to criticism as regards other people, but for me that is a very deep “default mode” that can resurface if you stack up enough frustration and criticism too quickly.)

My mom: get scared and anxious, cite weakness, make excuses and “I can’t do this” over and over again.

My brother: disappear into his internal world and not say anything to anyone. Refuse to answer questions about how he feels or thinks.

It’s a deep vibe of emotional anemia. We stand around at church parties like we’re ghosts. We aren’t allowed to talk to anyone else either, and we don’t want to. Hide your trauma and disappear, pretend to be normal. Me and my mother and brother were able to have deep intellectual discussions around the dinner table at points when my dad wasn’t around, but we’re three very different people who can’t really understand the internals of ourselves behind our intellectual viewpoints. We have no room to express them. There is almost no family unit.

But is this phenomenon Christian? Not like 100%. It’s CPTSD for 2 people, dyspraxia for my mom, and a sensory processing disorder for my younger brother, so it’s not a typical household. But we got told that Romans 3:23 was a thing and that no matter how much we sacrificed, it would never be enough for love. All have sinned, and thus all deserve to be criticized in light of Paul’s guidelines in the epistles. I learned really quick that personal self-sacrifice was a pointless endeavor, because there was not enough me to sacrifice. The point is that this household could exist in Christianity without ruffling any feathers. Nobody came along and told me “your ideas of love are unbiblical and wrong”. When I expressed them, people would nod and agree. Frankly, “Love is a commitment to the true good of another person” is a quote from J.Budzisewski’s How To Stay Christian in college. I haven’t read any scholarly disputes against that statement either.

Christians are at war! Get your Ephesians 6 armor on! GO! FIGHT! WIN! There was no glory in getting killed in my household, it was all about killing the evil philosophies of the Enemy through better debate prowess. Read, study and memorize scripture so you know what to say when a friend starts talking about their religion. Under that paradigm, the most loving thing you could do was not to be killed or suffer torture, it was to give guidance to help other people improve in Christ, to move the sanctification process along and help people become more sinless.

God could have given us free will without the extreme suffering.

If Adam hadn’t been stupid enough to eat the apple, Christ would not have had to suffer on our behalf in order to love us. Not sure how you missed the “Christ had to suffer a bloody death and torture because you screwed up” message, but that was the one I got. Suffering is not a loving thing to do, it’s a consequence of sin.

I was told that suffering was not a loving thing to do, it was a sign that God was trying to teach you something to be less of a rotten sinner. God makes sinners suffer so they will accept the Gospel and get rid of the sin (as a gradual process). As one gets rid of sin, the suffering goes down.

As one grows in Christian maturity, what can happen is that God can just put one through suffering as a witness to others, which is you suffering for the sin of others, just like Christ did. The response to that suffering is to find the person that you’re supposed to witness to, do that, and the suffering will stop. It should be noted that God put Job through suffering as a lesson to him and his friends and as a witness to Satan and to all the readers of the book.

We suffer because we sin, we suffer because others sin, and we suffer because Adam sinned. There is no love in it. Criminals love nobody as they suffer in jail, and this planet is one big prison cell for sinful people.

Love is not about suffering yourself, it is about helping to relieve the suffering of others. There’s a big difference between the suffering endured by the man suffering a lifetime sentence in solitary confinement for killing two prison guards, and the suffering the Apostles endured while they were proclaiming the Gospel. The reason why the suffering of the latter is an act of love is because proclaiming the Gospel is an act of love. It relieves the sin and suffering of billions of people daily. The suffering just authenticates the proclamation: yes, I am going to die on that hill. I will not back down from my belief in the truth, no matter how much you torture me and try to stop me. It’s a witness for the Gospel.

Suffering is just what happens when love and sin collide. God loves us and that is His nature to love; he would not leave us trapped in sin forever because that would not be good for us. He couldn’t not do it. We put Jesus through all that suffering on our behalf. We didn’t have to do that. It’s our fault.

I mean, abusers cause people suffering, is that loving them? No! Saying that to love is to endure suffering, that sounds like an abuser justification to me “it is loving to put up with my torture”. It actually sounds like the idiotic narrative my dad told me while he was abusing me, claiming that he was loving me and to be anything less than an abusive jerk was unloving and thoughtless. He kept telling me that I was destroying my own life even as he was the one actually destroying it, and sure enough, it’s me that has to re-parent my own dad on the fly because no one else in my household is up to the task. My mom should have done that, but she was too scared and “weak” so it’s up to me the strong one to solve all the problems. I resent that a lot. It’s not loving to sit around and endure suffering like my mom did. One needs to learn from it. One needs to do something about it.

In the face of Christ’s suffering on our behalf, we are the abusers of Christ. All of us. We abused God; God is. Part of believing the Gospel is turning away from the abuse we’ve committed against God, expressing regret, going through the sanctification process and getting better. My father abused me; I am still me, just a better version. There is nothing that I do that wasn’t in me from before: at one point I forced all of my beliefs to be logically consistent with themselves. I would debate, and then I would read back my posts to see in the belief I had in one post was the same as a belief I expressed in a different debate, and evaluate the differences. (Which do I actually believe? Is this consistent with Scripture? Which is actually true?)

That’s a good process for repairing the intellect, but my true trauma was in my emotional intuition, because I had been emotionally abused, and emotional intuition doesn’t completely respond to that sort of work. Intuition is more about hedging probabilities and outcomes, less about what is true than what can be true. It’s a status monitor.

Anyway, I’m going to stop here because I don’t want to overwhelm you by being like “you haven’t finished responding to my previous post, but I’m just going to disrespect that and go after you”, that’s rude. I intended this post to be short, a brief respect of your need for more time, but it has ballooned out of control and that is my own fault. I have nobody but myself to blame.

 

[Robban]

I understand this on some level. Not too long ago I was doing debates in the science forum and I was suffering “debate lag” where it took me days to respond. Sometimes debating here feels like psychological weightlifting to me. If you push too hard, too fast, you can re-traumatize yourself. Listening to your brain telling “er, this is hard, let’s take a break and come back to it” is actually a good idea.

Now that I think about it, I think I actually did debate retraumatization once, but not on this website. However, that descent into mental chaos felt more like digging up trauma that was already in my system rather than adding more trauma from without. *scratches head* It was like opening a door on the top of a tower and getting surprised by the sudden onslaught of wind. Wind being mental chaos in this case.

Actually, I think I did that twice, but the second time was body chaos instead of intellectual chaos, and so I had a degree of control and could manage the situation a lot better. Log off, emergency trip to a therapist immediately, talk to a friend, join another forum for my questions and issues. But that wasn’t just debate, that was chess re traumatizing, hence the physical aspect of it that dragged all my mind-body issues to the surface.

*blinks* Okay, maybe I don’t actually understand it after all, but at least I’m willing to be patient. Better to take a little more time with your responses than to write a bunch of chaotic posts and lose a rather valuable forum account due to losing control of your mind. Or your emotions, which may be more of what this is.


I generally find it easier to empathize with people who have gone through the same experiences that I’ve been through. Frankly, without a common experience, you have to use your imagination to build a solid basis for an empathetic response and it is really hard. Experience is not the obstacle to empathy, it is the bridge that makes true empathy possible.

A child doesn’t have a depth of experience, so an adult demanding that a child empathize with them is just abuse plain and simple. Demanding that the child help them because they need help is also abusive, an adult should be taking care of that child. There’s a difference between training a child to do the laundry so they can do it when they live on their own one day and demanding that the child do the laundry with no help just because the parent is struggling mentally or physically. A child can sense the difference.


Complete lack of emotional communication. The head of household, my father, was an abusive and threatening critic. This has left the entire household basically unable to talk to each other about any honest feelings. You say anything about how you feel, you get criticism of it immediately. You shouldn’t feel that. You shouldn’t think that. The message is clear and obvious.

My and brother learned to relate to each other based on performance metrics. The household is a masterclass in how to respond to criticism.

Me: get angry and fight back. Ignore the criticism, do whatever you wanted to do anyway, and tell dad whatever he wants to hear to get him to get out of the way. (Eventually I took a deep dive and changed up my response to criticism as regards other people, but for me that is a very deep “default mode” that can resurface if you stack up enough frustration and criticism too quickly.)

My mom: get scared and anxious, cite weakness, make excuses and “I can’t do this” over and over again.

My brother: disappear into his internal world and not say anything to anyone. Refuse to answer questions about how he feels or thinks.

It’s a deep vibe of emotional anemia. We stand around at church parties like we’re ghosts. We aren’t allowed to talk to anyone else either, and we don’t want to. Hide your trauma and disappear, pretend to be normal. Me and my mother and brother were able to have deep intellectual discussions around the dinner table at points when my dad wasn’t around, but we’re three very different people who can’t really understand the internals of ourselves behind our intellectual viewpoints. We have no room to express them. There is almost no family unit.

But is this phenomenon Christian? Not like 100%. It’s CPTSD for 2 people, dyspraxia for my mom, and a sensory processing disorder for my younger brother, so it’s not a typical household. But we got told that Romans 3:23 was a thing and that no matter how much we sacrificed, it would never be enough for love. All have sinned, and thus all deserve to be criticized in light of Paul’s guidelines in the epistles. I learned really quick that personal self-sacrifice was a pointless endeavor, because there was not enough me to sacrifice. The point is that this household could exist in Christianity without ruffling any feathers. Nobody came along and told me “your ideas of love are unbiblical and wrong”. When I expressed them, people would nod and agree. Frankly, “Love is a commitment to the true good of another person” is a quote from J.Budzisewski’s How To Stay Christian in college. I haven’t read any scholarly disputes against that statement either.

Christians are at war! Get your Ephesians 6 armor on! GO! FIGHT! WIN! There was no glory in getting killed in my household, it was all about killing the evil philosophies of the Enemy through better debate prowess. Read, study and memorize scripture so you know what to say when a friend starts talking about their religion. Under that paradigm, the most loving thing you could do was not to be killed or suffer torture, it was to give guidance to help other people improve in Christ, to move the sanctification process along and help people become more sinless.


If Adam hadn’t been stupid enough to eat the apple, Christ would not have had to suffer on our behalf in order to love us. Not sure how you missed the “Christ had to suffer a bloody death and torture because you screwed up” message, but that was the one I got. Suffering is not a loving thing to do, it’s a consequence of sin.

I was told that suffering was not a loving thing to do, it was a sign that God was trying to teach you something to be less of a rotten sinner. God makes sinners suffer so they will accept the Gospel and get rid of the sin (as a gradual process). As one gets rid of sin, the suffering goes down.

As one grows in Christian maturity, what can happen is that God can just put one through suffering as a witness to others, which is you suffering for the sin of others, just like Christ did. The response to that suffering is to find the person that you’re supposed to witness to, do that, and the suffering will stop. It should be noted that God put Job through suffering as a lesson to him and his friends and as a witness to Satan and to all the readers of the book.

We suffer because we sin, we suffer because others sin, and we suffer because Adam sinned. There is no love in it. Criminals love nobody as they suffer in jail, and this planet is one big prison cell for sinful people.

Love is not about suffering yourself, it is about helping to relieve the suffering of others. There’s a big difference between the suffering endured by the man suffering a lifetime sentence in solitary confinement for killing two prison guards, and the suffering the Apostles endured while they were proclaiming the Gospel. The reason why the suffering of the latter is an act of love is because proclaiming the Gospel is an act of love. It relieves the sin and suffering of billions of people daily. The suffering just authenticates the proclamation: yes, I am going to die on that hill. I will not back down from my belief in the truth, no matter how much you torture me and try to stop me. It’s a witness for the Gospel.

Suffering is just what happens when love and sin collide. God loves us and that is His nature to love; he would not leave us trapped in sin forever because that would not be good for us. He couldn’t not do it. We put Jesus through all that suffering on our behalf. We didn’t have to do that. It’s our fault.

I mean, abusers cause people suffering, is that loving them? No! Saying that to love is to endure suffering, that sounds like an abuser justification to me “it is loving to put up with my torture”. It actually sounds like the idiotic narrative my dad told me while he was abusing me, claiming that he was loving me and to be anything less than an abusive jerk was unloving and thoughtless. He kept telling me that I was destroying my own life even as he was the one actually destroying it, and sure enough, it’s me that has to re-parent my own dad on the fly because no one else in my household is up to the task. My mom should have done that, but she was too scared and “weak” so it’s up to me the strong one to solve all the problems. I resent that a lot. It’s not loving to sit around and endure suffering like my mom did. One needs to learn from it. One needs to do something about it.

In the face of Christ’s suffering on our behalf, we are the abusers of Christ. All of us. We abused God; God is. Part of believing the Gospel is turning away from the abuse we’ve committed against God, expressing regret, going through the sanctification process and getting better. My father abused me; I am still me, just a better version. There is nothing that I do that wasn’t in me from before: at one point I forced all of my beliefs to be logically consistent with themselves. I would debate, and then I would read back my posts to see in the belief I had in one post was the same as a belief I expressed in a different debate, and evaluate the differences. (Which do I actually believe? Is this consistent with Scripture? Which is actually true?)

That’s a good process for repairing the intellect, but my true trauma was in my emotional intuition, because I had been emotionally abused, and emotional intuition doesn’t completely respond to that sort of work. Intuition is more about hedging probabilities and outcomes, less about what is true than what can be true. It’s a status monitor.

Anyway, I’m going to stop here because I don’t want to overwhelm you by being like “you haven’t finished responding to my previous post, but I’m just going to disrespect that and go after you”, that’s rude. I intended this post to be short, a brief respect of your need for more time, but it has ballooned out of control and that is my own fault. I have nobody but myself to blame.

By showing empathy, we emulate the G-d like attribute of caring for others by being sensitive to their

situations and offering our compassion.


.

 

[MehGuy]

I’m being a little bit forceful because a lot of this is personal to me, and when my emotions get behind words I get the “you’re too harsh” accusation, especially from those who grew up with empathy. But seeing as you are critical of it, maybe I took the right tack. I’m actually pretty self-critical, because I know that I’m posting from a position of bias because I was raised in a harsh and critical environment.

I do not feel like you are being harsh with me. Really, I am more personally concerned with my own demeanor than the demeanor of Christians towards me. I am the one asking sensitive questions about the possible psychology underlying certain Christian concepts. Facing some hostility on my end is understandable.

The way I think about this is pretty simple: “To live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21). But also, the 4th command against murder is against taking one’s own life too.

Yeah.. the concept of martyrdom and the concept of a self righteous suicide can become blurred.

Imagine that you are in a closed country where the Gospel is not allowed to be proclaimed, and you are within a mile from the border of an open country where you will be safe. You are in a holding cell, and you have 24 hours to get out of the cell before you are moved to the central capital for your execution. You notice 1 loose brick in the back of your cell that is cracked. Do you pull the brick out on the slim chance you can pull the wall out and dig a quick tunnel to the surface and escape?

Or do you sit down and say to yourself “I will accept my glorious death on behalf of the Gospel.” and not do anything? What do you think a good Christian would do?

Everything in me is screaming “Pull that brick and get out of there!”. If you could go on, if you could live, is giving up and resigning yourself to your death not suicide? You’re cutting yourself off when you could have gone on. How many more people could have heard the Gospel if you had made it out of that cell? Accepting martyrdom when you could have avoided it is a cause for guilt in my view.

I would hope a Christian in that situation would try to escape. Realistically most Christians probably would escape, whether they romanticized martyrdom or not. For some Christians, martyrdom was probably a complex urge. A mixture of fear and avoidance, but also admiration and yearning. Perhaps a dangerous game of chicken?

There is an interesting quote from a Christian writer named Tertullian from ancient Roman times who recounted an incident where Christians willingly tried to provoke a martyrdom of their faith.

"When Arrius Antonious was pressing hard in Asia, all the Christians of the province, in one united band, presented themselves before his judgement seat; on which, ordering a few to be lead forth to execution, he said to the rest, 'O you wretched men, if you wish to die, you have precipices or nooses!"

Or Perpetua, an early example of a Christian martyr. She wrote in her diary..

"I knew that I should fight with beasts at the festival of Caesar, but I hoped to obtain the crown of martyrdom."

In your view, it seems, after I killed myself, I would have entered heaven to applause and “well done, good and faithful servant”. I refuse to believe that. I’m pretty sure a firm talking to for my sin would have happened. I didn’t want to explain to God why I had given up.

No, I do not believe a scenario like that would be seen as martyrdom under a Christian context. Especially killing someone. Perhaps martyrdom under a Muslim context, or some kind of secular one. Feminists for example might have seen you as some sort of martyr under male oppression.

To give credit, the Christian idea of martyrdom is often nonviolent, passive and ideally should be left up to fate or God's will. Unfortunately, from my quotes above the fate part was probably sometimes forced or at least nudged.

The point was that I was able to think of a solution to my problem, no matter how bad, so I had no excuse for giving into death. This led me on the path to thinking of better solutions. This is true of martyrdom situations as well. It’s hard to escape the Roman Empire, so I cut the Roman martyrs some slack, but I think you get the point.

You cut the martyrs only some slack? Do you believe there was more they could do to not be martyred?

To be a martyr is, on some level, to be a failure.

Lol, I cannot help but picture Donald Trump saying.. "I like Christians who were not martyred, the ones who were martyred are losers."

I will say that is an interesting perspective from a Christian. Certainly not a perspective I was given growing up. Was this the general attitude from your Christian upbringing?

Did you not witness any glorification of martyrdom in your Christian environment growing up?

Some people have taken this story and claimed my resistance to suicide is not Christianity and it’s only me, but my retort is that is a Jungian argument. They are not arguing from Christianity when they make that claim. The return is that, well your argument against suicide is Jungian and Kantian then. I return that by telling them that two philosophies can arrive at the same result, that doesn’t mean they are the same, it’s an intellectual simulacra. Using the sustainance of my rational consciousness to proclaim the Gospel is using it as a means to an end and that’s anti-Kant. Christ is the hero I am proclaiming and that’s anti-Jung.

I am not very familiar with Jung or Kant. Suicide is often seen as a grave sin in Christianity, perhaps one of ensured damnation. Martyrdom was glorified in my Christian upbringing, but your scenario would not be, nor fit the idea of martyrdom under a Christian context.

 

[public hermit]

Sadly how realistic is it to not romanticize martyrdom? Almost feels like it's built in.

I cannot relate to the clips in that video. Yeah, I don't see that as good. And to give my two cents, all of that looks like just another way to feed the ego. If you're posting a video about your desire for martyrdom, you are needing too much attention. This is partly why I was saying it would be more beneficial to focus on letting go of things like ego, a sense of possession, inordinate desire for passing things, etc. Seek first the kingdom or set your mind on eternal things, etc. The ancients were not wrong in their approach to spirituality. I think they often took asceticism way too far, but they learned what works and what doesn't. The basic principles was- empty of creatures; full of God. Presumably, at a mature point, martyrdom is neither attractive nor terrifying since one has found a "kingdom" neither this world nor death can touch. It's kind of sad to see those clips because I think something healthy and good is missing, a certain kind of freedom. But, what do I know?

What kind of denomination did you grow up under?

It was in the Arminian vein of Protestantism. My childlike understanding was that God loved me if I was good. Grace was not a relevant part of the picture, practically speaking; although, it was talked about. If I was good, God loved me. If I "backslid" and then was not-good, God could start not loving me again. So not only was God frightening, but I just had trouble being good. I had trouble in my back pocket, as they say. But I was also a sensitive child, and I was really bothered by my inability.

Visiting religious trauma forums, the reasons for psychological damage varies. I used to think the submissive aspect of Christianity (relevant in most other religions really) was mostly harmless.. but after reading about other people who had a bad experience with it.. I had to rethink that stance. Which is sad.. but goes to show we all have blind spots.

I'm not sure what you mean. My first thought is a "women submit to your husband" kind of passage, i.e. the household codes of the NT. But I wonder if you mean something else.

I try to be rational about other people's blindspots in return. Saying all this, I don't want to act like I grew up in a rough or mean Christian environment. If anything I grew up in one of the better Christian environments. But.. that still doesn't mean certain aspects of the faith can't really hurt you.

Sure, most anything is a mixed bag. There were some clearly not-good things in my household, and I would also say in the faith I was taught, but there were good things, too. It helps to bring things out in the light and fresh air to see what they are really about. I am sure I have some blind spots, but I looked and didn't find any, so.

 

[linux.poet]

Facing some hostility on my end is understandable.

I am here as a Christian, as a witness to the truth of the Gospel, and as an Ambassador of Jesus Christ (different from the formal CF title, though the concept is kind of the same). If I’m being harsh with you, that reflects badly on my faith and Christ who sent me.

I’m still human though, and still have emotions.

You cut the martyrs only some slack? Do you believe there was more they could do to not be martyred?

I actually don’t know a lot about the martyrs. We didn’t talk about them in my household at all, and it wasn’t really a common topic at church at all. Maybe one or two people mentioned the benefit of reading Fox’s Book of Martyrs, so I know the book exists, but I never read it. Weeks and months and years could pass at one of our churches without the word “martyr” even being used in conversation or our pastor even using the word in a sermon. Not even something I would remember.

I would evaluate whether they could have done better avoiding death on a case-by-case basis. I would be inclined to take a critical approach, because I have navigated some dangerous situations in the past. A few good decisions can be the difference between life and death.

I suspect there were many Christians in Ancient Rome who did their Christian evangelism in a quiet manner, skillfully evaded being caught by the government, and died in peace. But we don’t have their stories, just the ones who got killed for being loud and stupid.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

I mean, this instruction Paul gave to Timothy was public knowledge, Timothy was the lead pastor in Ephesus. People back then may have actually followed it.

I will say that is an interesting perspective from a Christian. Certainly not a perspective I was given growing up. Was this the general attitude from your Christian upbringing?

Did you not witness any glorification of martyrdom in your Christian environment growing up?

No glorification at all. We didn’t even talk about martyrdom.

We pray for the safety of our missionaries and others in our church body who may be heading into danger, like those who are in the military. While I don’t think anyone in my church would use the word “failure” in the same sentence as “martyrdom” - that’s all me man, I be blunt with the severe language - the general impression I got was that the goal of Christianity was to proclaim the Gospel, use what situations you happen to be in as an opportunity to witness, and to stay alive as long as possible. We are supposed to use our spiritual gifts to edify the church and to bring our “time, talent, and treasure” to build it up. Our times are in the Lord’s hands, and He decides when we die (aka fall asleep in Jesus to await resurrection at Christ’s return *ahem*).

 

[MehGuy]

I cannot relate to the clips in that video. Yeah, I don't see that as good. And to give my two cents, all of that looks like just another way to feed the ego. If you're posting a video about your desire for martyrdom, you are needing too much attention. This is partly why I was saying it would be more beneficial to focus on letting go of things like ego, a sense of possession, inordinate desire for passing things, etc. Seek first the kingdom or set your mind on eternal things, etc. The ancients were not wrong in their approach to spirituality. I think they often took asceticism way too far, but they learned what works and what doesn't. The basic principles was- empty of creatures; full of God. Presumably, at a mature point, martyrdom is neither attractive nor terrifying since one has found a "kingdom" neither this world nor death can touch. It's kind of sad to see those clips because I think something healthy and good is missing, a certain kind of freedom. But, what do I know?

I do think there is an element of narcissism to fantazing about martyrdom, even for those who actually went through with it. One is esstianally comparing or dreaming of becoming a Christ-like figure. Or at least emulating Christ to an extreme degree. While I do hope that for many narcissism is the main motivation, I think there is often a stronger romantic notion as the primary driver of these fantasies.

Are you talking about a buddhist-like approach to martyrdom? Was this an approach you were taught growing up?

It was in the Arminian vein of Protestantism. My childlike understanding was that God loved me if I was good. Grace was not a relevant part of the picture, practically speaking; although, it was talked about. If I was good, God loved me. If I "backslid" and then was not-good, God could start not loving me again. So not only was God frightening, but I just had trouble being good. I had trouble in my back pocket, as they say. But I was also a sensitive child, and I was really bothered by my inability.

Are you still part of the same denominationas an adult or have you found a new denominational or non-denominational home?

My upbringing was the opposite. It was filled with grace. I was taught that God loved people no matter what. Even those damned in hell. Although this perspective probably helps cheapen love too. Love is like running tap water, you take it for granted. It's unconditional, and loses value for some because of it. While I lived in a very graceful household I rarely felt loved by God emotionally, only intellectually. Probably a combination of God loving us uncondionally and also subjecting us to potential extreme suffering. How does one truly make sense of love under this context?

Curious if your conditional upbringing strangly added value to love and as a result you may have felt emotionally loved by God more often than I did?

I'm not sure what you mean. My first thought is a "women submit to your husband" kind of passage, i.e. the household codes of the NT. But I wonder if you mean something else.

Submission in general. Church authority, God. Women probably carry this burden heavier in conservative Christian environments, men probably more so in liberal ones.

This is one avenue I did not suffer psychologically. I was taught that there were a lot of false teachers out there. As a consequence church authority was always suspect in my mind. I always found it amusing that on the drive home from church my father would spend the time criticizing what we were just preached, lol.

Spiritual submission in general I had trouble tapping into, nor even liked. Deep submission can induce altered/spiritual states, something even science finds. Perhaps like spiritual masochism, engaging heavily in spiritual submission can also cause psychological problems?

I do know some descriptions of heaven sounds like submission being practiced to the extreme. Like bowing down to God for eternity.A description of heaven I never liked as a Christian but a description of heaven other people might like.

Sure, most anything is a mixed bag. There were some clearly not-good things in my household, and I would also say in the faith I was taught, but there were good things, too. It helps to bring things out in the light and fresh air to see what they are really about. I am sure I have some blind spots, but I looked and didn't find any, so.

What are some of the good things you came up from your Christian upbringing?

Yeah, blind spots are just that.. blind. Still, I think for many things we can discover them if we just think a little more critically.

 

[public hermit]

I do think there is an element of narcissism to fantazing about martyrdom, even for those who actually went through with it. One is esstianally comparing or dreaming of becoming a Christ-like figure. Or at least emulating Christ to an extreme degree. While I do hope that for many narcissism is the main motivation, I think there is often a stronger romantic notion as the primary driver of these fantasies.

Yes, it is quite possible that someone who died for their faith in Christ fantasized about it. But I would say that's foolish because it doesn't take into account the potential abyss that the death experience could be, i.e., the existential crisis of having to let go of absolutely everything, including one's own self. I don't know, perhaps they think some angel will come and whisper in their ear that it's all okay, but that shouldn't be the expectation if Christ cried from the cross, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I am convinced that following Christ is more about letting go than anything else. It is a supreme act of faith to let go in trust, and we all get the gift of doing so when our time comes. But to practice letting go now so that we can see what is real and good, sans self-centered passions, is precisely what Jesus taught. Deny yourself every day and seek the kingdom first. In my opinion, day-dreaming about some glorious martyrdom is a set up for disaster. It's not realistic or healthy. Death is a part of life, but it's also the extreme experience.

Are you talking about a buddhist-like approach to martyrdom? Was this an approach you were taught growing up?

No, but I think I might understand why you say that. Not much of this was taught to me growing up, nor was it practiced in earnest by many of the Christians I was around, but it has been a part of the Christian faith from the beginning. Beside the teachings of Jesus, I am mostly drawing from those Christians who went into the desert in the 3rd and 4th centuries, as well as the ascetics and contemplatives of both the eastern and western traditions. I'll give you an example.

Maximus the Confessor once said that detachment leads to love. What does he mean by detachment? Basically, he means being empty of "creatures" or empty of ideas/images/forms and with one's awareness and desire wholly oriented toward God. Still it sounds counter-intuitive to say detachment leads to love. But we can ask, why is it that we don't properly love others? One could say it is because of our attachments, such as attachment to our ideas, or to our things, or to our group, or to our desires, or to our self, etc. It's by detachment that we become free to love with abandon. One might not hear, "Detachment leads to love" in many evangelical sermons today, but it's been there the whole time. And interestingly, Maximus the Confessor was basically martyred for his faith. His hand was cut off so he couldn't write, his tongue was cut out so he couldn't speak, and he died not long after. Not to be harsh, but did he fantasize about that happening to him? I think that would be an ungenerous guess about someone who taught and lived detachment and would have rejected the very idea of fantasizing about anything. Still, after watching those clips, I can see what you are saying.

Did you experience a lot of romanticizing martyrdom growing up? I think I have similar feelings about people giving their testimony. This says a lot about me, but when I was a kid, I wanted to hear all the bad stuff folks did, and I got a little bored when they started talking about how Jesus changed them, lol.

Are you still part of the same denominationas an adult or have you found a new denominational or non-denominational home?

No, as an adult I found groups that fit me a bit better. To be fair, what I said earlier was a mostly how I grasped what I was hearing. My sister didn't have any of those thoughts, haha. My temperament is not well suited for legalistic environments. I have obsessive, compulsive tendencies, and scruples (head games) were a problem for me. I have no struggle with them now, but it took a lot to let them go.

Curious if your conditional upbringing strangly added value to love and as a result you may have felt emotionally loved by God more often than I did?

I don't know. I'm not sure how to answer to your question. I don't know if I felt loved by God as a child. I felt fear of God as a child. I was afraid I wouldn't be good enough for God. I didn't start feeling loved by God until I realized that grace was a thing. I think I should have been taught that we all mess up and God still loves us, don't be afraid, but that was not the message I heard. Maybe it was said, and I guess it probably was, but it was not what I heard. But like I said, my sister grew up in the same environment and didn't have those same struggles with Christianity.

My upbringing was the opposite. It was filled with grace. I was taught that God loved people no matter what. Even those damned in hell. Although this perspective probably helps cheapen love too. Love is like running tap water, you take it for granted. It's unconditional, and loses value for some because of it. While I lived in a very graceful household I rarely felt loved by God emotionally, only intellectually. Probably a combination of God loving us uncondionally and also subjecting us to potential extreme suffering. How does one truly make sense of love under this context?

I'm glad to hear your home was filled with grace. I don't think teaching that God is unconditional love is such a bad thing, but that is coming from my perspective. I hadn't thought about it cheapening love, but that does make sense.

Evil and suffering are a huge red flag when it comes to the idea of a loving God. I still have no answers for that, and I don't think anyone does. There's a quote by the Christian philosopher, Marilyn McCord-Adams, where she says the scriptures are short on explaining why God allows evil and long on telling God's plan to rectify all evils. I think that's right, but the "why?" of the matter is a gaping, unanswered question.

For a long time, my faith was primarily on an intellectual level, and that worked. But having taken up some of the spiritual practices of ancient Christians has made it more of an experience than a matter of my own thoughts or ideas. My love for God is much different today, and really, God has become the desire of my heart. I can't explain that. But when I read the NT scriptures now, they are in a very different light. Things that Jesus says make sense in a way they didn't before.

Submission in general. Church authority, God. Women probably carry this burden heavier in conservative Christian environments, men probably more so in liberal ones.

This is one avenue I did not suffer psychologically. I was taught that there were a lot of false teachers out there. As a consequence church authority was always suspect in my mind. I always found it amusing that on the drive home from church my father would spend the time criticizing what we were just preached, lol.

Spiritual submission in general I had trouble tapping into, nor even liked. Deep submission can induce altered/spiritual states, something even science finds. Perhaps like spiritual masochism, engaging heavily in spiritual submission can also cause psychological problems?

I do know some descriptions of heaven sounds like submission being practiced to the extreme. Like bowing down to God for eternity.A description of heaven I never liked as a Christian but a description of heaven other people might like.

Okay, yeah that makes sense. I am skeptical of authority, too. I like traditions where the polity is more democratic than hierarchical.

I can understand those feelings about "submission." Now that I think about it, I don't think I ever use that term, but I know it's common in some Christian circles. Perhaps what I have been saying about letting go is similar to what other Christians mean by submission? I don't know. It's interesting you mention it as a "burden." It reminds of when Jesus says if you are carrying heavy burdens, then come to me. Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart. Take up my yolk because it is easy and light.

I never could make sense of that, but in terms of letting go, it makes sense. What is a humble heart but one that leaves the past to grace and the future to providence, living in this moment, trusting God? Is that submission? Yeah, maybe so. Does it give freedom and peace? I think so, but I take your point, that these words, used in particular ways can have an adverse, unwelcome effect. I know that much abuse and damage has been done.

Just my thought: I think of heaven/hell in purely spiritual terms. That is, we enter into the unmitigated presence and love of God, unable to escape what we truly are with our usual distractions. Our hearts and what we love is naked and in the light of pure love. That could be a welcomed or unwelcomed experience, I suppose, but I think it will set things right. I think the images communicated in the scriptures are just that, images of the reality. They are trying to communicate something we can't really understand except by images and metaphors.

What are some of the good things you came up from your Christian upbringing?

I apologize for the long response. I get carried away. My dad was a good man and great example for me. Other than that, I enjoyed church activities, especially the food, lol. Pot luck dinners were a great thing, in my mind. So, yeah, the community part of it was good. When I got little older, my dad rented me out to every farmer and rancher in the church so I got to learn a lot of cool stuff and play cowboy. I learned some good ways of being in the world despite the legalism, and I can't complain about that, but I'm not sure that was anything more than culture. Christianity didn't come into its own for me until I got older.

I am curious. What are your thoughts on love? Do you have a worked out idea or are you working on it? Is your idea of love radically different from what you were taught or similar?