I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful.
It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over).
I feel like, primarily, the reason why our society isn't having children is because of a growing selfishness and entitlement; which happens to be the very thing that Rome was suffering from when their society was collapsing too.
No, I'm not rich and I'm not old. But I was brought up in a family that cherished loved ones and family. Love was agape, not eros.
People are choosing not to have kids so they can live their own lives, or because they don't want to bring more children into this crazy world, or any number of various other perfectly legitimate reasons, such as economic worries.
While I agree this might indicate a culture of "selfishness," I have to disagree that it's a bad thing. It seems to me a good thing that people can choose whether or not to have kids, as opposed to being forced into it because lack of education or access to healthcare. It seems to me that society has to adjust to this, not individuals.
People are sharing their own views and outlooks. There is nothing "distasteful" about that, nor are these people selfish and entitled. Bizarre comment.
If they were really selfish, then they'd stop being parents. It's not selfish to say that something you're going through is hard or sucks if you're still putting in the work.
The answer is not for there to be less people--less youth and vitality in the world--or to deny anyone the right to have children (within limits. You can't just be plopping out 5 kids if you're a broke fuckwit).
The incentives are not there, for example, you’re financially invested in raising 5 kids that will pay my pension in the future. By not having said kids, I get all the economic benefit of not having to spend money raising kids, while getting my pension paid (maybe)
Parenting can be deeply meaningful and fulfilling, and your experience is a powerful reminder of that. But I'd be cautious about chalking up declining birth rates to selfishness. People today are navigating a very different world
I think the issue is that the very different world is different because it's about the self and the individual. I am the most important thing. Human rights are about the person. My body. I can still be selfish and unselfish in my consumer choices. I can be unselfish and share my cake with you but I still get to eat my cake. What choices I make define who I am. The identities I freely adopt make me whom I am. The rewards of life impact me first.
It used to be about sacrifice and responsibilities. It's about giving up on choice. It's about not having cake. Our grandparents were defined by their responsibilities not their choices. Their identity was assigned to them as parent, it wasn't something they made themselves. It's horrific to think about for many (including me). How could I advocate for less of me?
A fear of the future of the world is about my future identity. Indeed we fear giving up our identity. We even want to die on our own terms. Many comments here talk about having babies as a kind of economic consumer choice and I imagine some parents do have children as a luxury good. "If only it was cheaper." It's still a choice of the self.
Our world is different in that it's hard to think about and talk of a world where the self is less important than the other and yet being a parent is usually about putting the child before themselves. Ironically therefore, babies are the best way to talk about not living in a selfish world!
Here in the US. I think for the young population there is a genuine affordability crisis, coupled with health insurance being so expensive it is a genuine blocker for a lot of people.
some of the younger people i work with also mention climate change and global instability, amongst other things. they don’t want to bring kids into this world as it exists today.
It's Malthusian scarcity, expressed through market-clearing prices. It's like some alpha baboon hordes all the food so nobody else is going to reproduce.
> I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful.
Shouldn't people who think that parenting is not a glamorous job be allowed to express their thoughts on this subject?
> It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over).
So other people's feelings and experiences are according to you distasteful but yours should be accepted as some sort of universal truth?
You had a great experience bringing kids into this world, that's nice but that doesn't mean that everyone should be willing to go through the same things you did.
We all have the right to express our thoughts. We also have the right to keep some thoughts to ourselves. Maybe not every opinion needs to be shared, hm?
But my parents sucked. And they thought parenting sucks, but they had kids anyway. I don't want to continue the cycle. My wife feels the same way. We're pretty happy, healthy, married for 11 years; we just don't want kids.
> He pointed to the risk of selection bias: those who volunteer are likely to be “spiritually hungering for a mystical experience,”...
I would go further and suppose that any Christian elder or leader who volunteered to do this had already demonstrated their unsuitability to speak on the matter of psychedelics and God.
> I would go further and suppose that any Christian elder or leader who volunteered to do this had already demonstrated their unsuitability to speak on the matter of psychedelics and God.
I have honest questions. Would you mind expanding? Is there a theological basis for your stance? What would a suitable Christian elder or leader say on the matter of psychedelics and God?
For example, it has been written in the letter to the Ephesians 5.15-21:
Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Because of this don’t become foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is and don’t be drunken with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing and making melody in your heart to the lord; giving thanks always concerning all things to God, even the father, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ; subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.
The letter to the Galatians (5.19-23) may distinguish between drunkenness and drug use depending on if you consider φαρμακεία (pharmaceia) to include the use of psychedelics:
Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ... sorcery (φαρμακεία), ... drunkenness (μέθαι), ... and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
That’s a helpful reference. Thank you. But I understand pharmakeia to refer more to sorcery or deception, not to altered states or chemical use in general. Otherwise, wouldn’t every medication also fall under this condemnation?
If someone undergoes an experience that results in greater love, joy, peace, patience, etc., the very fruits listed in this same passage, then how do we weigh that against the method of arriving there?
The method of arrival is important because we can only be in one of two states. If in the spirit, we will be having the fruits of the spirit, if in the flesh, we will be having the fruits of the flesh. So while being drunken, we could for example be less fighty and murderous (two of the prohibited actions) but we will still end up hurting people in other ways.
A fuller quote from the Galatians letter reads:
But I say, walk by spirit, and you will certainly not fulfill the desire of flesh. For flesh desires against spirit, and spirit against flesh; and these are contrary to one another, that you might not do the things that you desire. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ...
While that only says that we might not do the things we desire (i.e. not hurting others) it's expanded in the letter to the Romans 8.1-9:
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, not according to flesh walking, but according to spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit. For those being according to flesh mind the things of the flesh, but those according to spirit, the things of the spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace; because the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be. Those who are in the flesh can’t please God. But you are not in flesh but in spirit, if it is so that the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man doesn’t have the spirit of Christ, he is not his.
Jesus also described this dichotomy in, for example, Matthew 7.15-20, 12.33 and 13.1-33. (This is not to say that a person can be perfect, nor are these passages saying this given technicalities of their Greek verbs.)
If a psychedelic experience leads to humility, repentance, and love, how do you know it was “of the flesh”? Could it not be a moment when the Spirit spoke through the weakness of flesh, as God does often in scripture?
If God can use a burning bush, a talking donkey, and a dream given to Pharaoh (a pagan king), is it really theologically sound to say that God cannot or will not speak through a psilocybin vision?
Is it possible that your framework is set up to reject any experience you disapprove of, no matter the outcome?
Yes, the account of Balaam's talking donkey is a great illustration that God can and does speak to us when we are going against him. That's also been my experience, and I'm thankful for his patience.
At the same time, monasteries have a long history of producing beer, wine, liqeur (think Chartreuse) and liqour (think Klosterfrau Melissengeist).
At the same time - having a glass of wine for stimulation while contemplating the divine might not be the same as drunkenness? And is the different the dose ("a glass of wine") or the purpose ("stimulation while contemplating the divine")?
I’m a practicing Catholic but I am a passionate consumer of history in many different forms. I agree there is genuine belief but it’s unlikely to me that a Jarl in Norway woke up one morning and thought “today I shall be baptized!” and suddenly renounced all of their ancestors and prior beliefs. There is a path from A to Z and I believe it always included tangible benefits in their reality. Things they can feel and see. This is why I believe in Christ so deeply - I know it to be true with what I have felt and experienced.
There really isn't a need for missionaries today. The Catholic church recognizes the concept of the virtuous pagan, which is really their attempt to handwave away some really deeply troubling implications. But they chose their poison, and they have drank it, and now catholics must deal with the consequences.
The concept of the virtuous pagan is thus: what if someone never hears the word of God, but is otherwise moral in their conduct? They will be judged as a Christian, whereas someone who rejects the word of God is destined for damnation.
Hypothetical: Gerald is a virtuous pagan. A missionary tells him the word of God. He rejects the word of God but continues to live his moral life. He is now going to hell because of that missionary.
I maintain that missionaries do not save the damned, they damn the moral. Please stop trying to recruit for your cult, just be happy meeting in your congregations, stop spreading the fucking gospels to people who are just sick of hearing that shit already. Goddamn. It's not special or important, it's just spiritual opium for unhappy people, to give them something to look forward to in death while they turn their noses up at people in life and act superior.
What a disgusting and astonishingly ignorant response. You're distorting things and your vulgarity betrays your hateful bias.
First of all, it is essential to Christianity to spread the truth of the Gospels. It is not optional. Christians have been commanded to do so by someone they take to be the Lord of the Universe. If you accept that, then it is necessary. It becomes an act of selfless love, to bring light to the darkness so that people may be saved from the darkness of sin. It isn't just missionaries, but every Christian has this duty. That's nonnegotiable. Your dislike of evangelism cannot change that.
Now, how it is done is a matter of judgement. Usually, it's a matter of demonstration, of living one's life according to the moral and divine law, and through outward signs that make known one's beliefs to other people. When someone lives a good life, this example inspires other people to learn more about the person in question, to better understand where this goodness comes from. Thus, the message of the Gospels can come out in a natural way during normal conversation, and when inspired by example, tends to carry more weight with people. If you genuinely accept the propositions of Christianity as true, then your speech and actions will reflect that. You don't need to strain and look for artificial ways to breach the subject.
Second, you speak of the Church like it has been composed of a succession of idiots who just recently realized the "implications" you propose. Yes, we had to wait two millennia before some guy on the internet or some pamphleteer finally realized there's an elephant in the room (never mind that Christianity started small in a backwater of the Roman Empire). Talk about cringe.
The Church still holds, as it always has, that baptism is necessary for salvation. Now, just because the sacraments are supposed to furnish us with certain graces doesn't mean God Himself is bound by the sacraments. Imagine our pagan forefathers who lived and died a thousand years before the Incarnation. They could not have possibly come to know Christ in the way the Gospels make evident. However, they could still have recognized and lived according to the moral law. Christ is the Incarnate Logos, so if you accept the moral law, you have, to some degree at least, accepted the Logos. Thus, if you come to know Christ through the Gospels, and you recognize in Christ the Incarnation of Reason Itself (that's what John 1 is about[0], though anything but the Greek do it justice), of this moral order, then why would you reject Christ? It makes no sense. The only answer is either a failure of recognition, or that one consciously rejects the Logos, of reason and morality, as evil people do (and all sin is a minor or major rejection of Logos). And if some form of invincible ignorance is indeed responsible, then there is no fault. Here's a bit more on the subject [0].
Cringe is trying to push your beliefs on other people because sky daddy commands you to. I'm not reading anything more on Christianity or catholicism, not after my early youth was squandered by moralizing hypocrites. Religious trauma is a very real phenomenon, and I'd argue that it's on the rise. Christians need to take a serious look inward and try to figure out why it is their religion of peace leaves such a wake of devastated souls and relationships. I actually saw two Christian parents, wholly bought into the fertility cult aspect, encourage their daughter to not seek cancer treatment because it might render her infertile. This is not an isolated attitude.
Also, why should it matter to me if they're doing it because they think they're commanded to by some omnipotent figure? I regularly disregard the rantings of schizophrenics, why should I buy into one delusion and not another? Why should I respect Christian beliefs more than other delusions?
I don't know why anyone is reluctant to believe in your assessment. While not Catholic now, I recall all the saint-worship in catholic school, which, as you probably noticed too, consisted almost solely of those that converted their own tribe of pagan barbarians for the period between Rome's fall and the Spanish Inquisition. Saint Boniface, Saint Patrick, etc. They pretty much declared people anointed demigods to be worshipped forever as reward for convincing barbarians that all their problems can be solved by the cross.
I've been using Conduit for quite a while now and have found it to be very good.
For ages though it has been missing support for spaces, but support has just landed in the development builds and it is great. I've already updated my service and it has worked as expected.
I love that this is a discussion here. How profitable! There are very few questions that are of greater importance than the one you have alluded to.
I'm a Christian and, oddly, don't suffer from the same existential dread as most admit any more, but I used to be consumed by it.
The simplest way I could say it is this: once you are shown what is behind the curtain and you place your trust in the one who's running the show then dread gives way to overwhelming peace. That's what happened for me and I guarantee that anyone who seeks the same true God will find the same peace.
Easy to dismiss, I know, but I guarantee it's true. Odd, eh?
Part of dealing with your existential dread is accepting the fact that you're right to be afraid, but not for the reasons you first think. This will be a bridge too far for some, but a discerning reading of this could be the catalyst some need: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/edwards_jonathan/Sermon...
Thank you for sharing this. I’m a Christian as well and have found the same peace about death. At the same time, I get stressed out easily about work and probably have an existential dread about negative reputation or “wasting my potential” - clearly my work-related identity is an idol (in Christian parlance).
I was watching “Hustle” (Adam Sandler basketball movie) yesterday and strangely enough a line he said resonated with me: “they can’t kill you if you’re already dead.” (The context in the movie was that the youngster protagonist missed his official chance of playing in the NBA by failing the combine, and thus was “dead.” He had nothing to lose when he got a random last-ditch chance to demonstrate his skills in another venue.). As a Christian we believe that our old selves have died and that we are born again in the Spirit, even while we are here on earth. This gives those who believe this the confidence to face any fear or challenge in this lifetime, as we have already died anyway, there is nothing to lose since our new lives are secure in Christ (even after a physical death process).
I'm Christian, and feel likewise - no existential dread. We recently had various deaths and mortal health scares in our family and among friends. I hadn't really confronted death before that but I realised that because I had complete faith in the fate of the departed (or the person who was unwell etc), it was the people around them that I worried about more, but even that was tempered by the fact that I knew they'd be taken care of too.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Imagine playing a game of Minecraft where the game was constantly being updated to help you get the most out of it, and where you experienced something much deeper as a result of engaging in that process.
The problem with Christianity is that all this stuff about God, Christ's sacrifice, and letting yourself have faith is all very nice, but the ethical side of the religion is, to me, quite deplorable.
Could you please expand on this? Full disclosure, I am a Christian myself and am genuinely interested in which ethical parts of Christianity you find deplorable.
To me, the ethics essentially come down to mirroring Christ in my own life in everything I do; the moral compass is Christ himself in the Christian life. I fail often but that's the goal / struggle. With that, I'd like to know what those outside of the faith find deplorable about the way Christ lived His life?
And I do understand that deplorable ethical decisions have been made by those or the body calling themselves Christians (and sadly, myself too at times). I would say this is a sin / shortcoming of the person or group and not of what Christ has asked that person or group to live like.
James 1:27: "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
Please explain. I'm not on either side but you've left a very strong claim without backing it up. At the very least someone who responds will likely have an entirely different version of what you said than you do
I do not think a God that allows his children the option to damn themselves for all eternity is morally good. That is pretty much my main ethical issue in terms of the basic theology. I think the morally correct action for God would be to override the wishes of humans. I do not think that "free will" is a good excuse to allow people to be damned forever. A parent who allows his child to touch the stove is a bad parent.
I don't think it's necessary to believe in eternal damnation in order to be a Christian. Hans Urs von Balthasar and David Bentley Hart are two preeminent theologians who would agree. That's just from the little I know on this subject.
I mean it’s surely possible to find theologians that don’t but it’s the official doctrine of all real existing sects, and regardless, even if you forget about eternal damnation then is still implies that you aren’t saved unless you put faith in Christ.
My other issue with Christianity is that Jesus comes off as genuinely unhinged sometimes. For example, when he tells the Jews that the only way to be saved is to eat his flesh, and when they say “surely that’s just a metaphor, how do we eat your flesh?” he says “no, I’m being totally serious”. There are a bunch of times in John where the stuff he is saying sounds crazy even to his disciples. Let me ask you, if someone today came and said those things, would you believe them? The only difference between him and a modern person on drugs is the records of his supposed miracles
You don't need to eat the whole cake at once. It's astonishingly tough to give advice on this sort of thing. A couple of starting points which might work for some people:
1. Dwelling on the utter absurdity of the universe appearing from nowhere without the intervention of a power well beyond our means to understand is a good start.
2. Try to move from the dominant paradigm of scientific analysis (nothing wrong with it, in its place!) which breaks things down into smaller things, to a narrative or holistic view of the world. They're both equally valid, and both can be considered fundamental. There are things happening in the world and to you. Those things are all imbued with meaning. Nothing is meaningless. What is the story of your life, what is your mission? If the events of your life were trying to tell you something, what would that be?
Alternatively, the fact that we don't yet know how the universe came to be doesn't imply that there has to be some great power that created it.
Things are happening all the time, of course, but there is no need to see meaning anywhere. Humans have a strong need to seek meaning, and will even go so far as to make it up where it does not exist.
If everything that exists has a cause, and a higher power that created the universe exists, something else must have caused it to exist. What caused God?
This is one of the ontological arguments for the existence of God. Any intelligible first cause must have a prior cause. Therefore the first cause is unintelligible. The thing which caused the universe is beyond our understanding.
I've got Minetest on my machines. Another good one along these lines is Veloren. It's a Rust voxel game along the lines of minecraft and Dwarf Fortress.
It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over).
I feel like, primarily, the reason why our society isn't having children is because of a growing selfishness and entitlement; which happens to be the very thing that Rome was suffering from when their society was collapsing too.
No, I'm not rich and I'm not old. But I was brought up in a family that cherished loved ones and family. Love was agape, not eros.
reply