I think I said there are problems with using conscience to determine the good and when someone should feel bad. NOt that it wasn’t conscience. I also went on to say that one had to go deeply into oneself to be able to trust conscience. I may have contradicted myself as I explored, but I think as my argument developed I indicated that it could work, that one could find a voice in one’s head to trust, once one went through the process of separating out culture, parenting, self-hate posing as conscience, and so on. And once one challenged ideas, like those from scripture, that can lead to guilt where it is not necessary. I don’t think this is easy. I think we are taught now, by both secular and religious authorities, to feel guilty for things that are part and parcel of being social mammals, such as emotions - which I mentioned. To say that conscience determines the good and bad, to me makes it seem like that voice we call conscience is one we can take for granted is not utterly contaminated by sick cultural elements.
Oh, the poor guy probably wants a little nap, let him get down for a while.
Aren’t we then giving pyschopaths the right to rape out daughters and more?
So conscience is the source of evil and it would be best not to have one. Psychopaths become not just fine when they harm others, but role models. If we were all psychopaths, there would be no bad acts.
I have a hard time knowing what is Jesus, what is from the people who listened and told the stories and what is from translators and the church. But a number of the quotes of Jesus can lead to guilt. A quick search found…
To pressure people to love their enemies is too much - just imagine what child victims of violence will do with that kind of thing. Now, of course, he may have been misquoted. Translations may push certain words like ‘love’ here to far forward. But back in the days when I as an adult relooked at Jesus, the Biblical Jesus had a lot of ideas that put pressure on the emotional body in ways I consider unloving.
I like what he did there, but there is still guilt. Go and sin no more. Just because she slept with someone outside her marriage does not mean it was a sin. And you should agree if conscience is the judge. Perhaps her husband was a violent unloving man, and once in her life she wanted to make love where there was love present. Jesus just assumed it was wrong what she did, but that no one else could be violent towards here SINCE THEY WERE NOT PERFECT.
But it seems like your argument is: here he went against guilt, so he does not produce guilt. He said and did a lot of stuff. They add up to a lot of room for guilt.
You think that is not going to create a lot of guilt in people. Imagine poor teenagers listening to that, they are all having premarital sex, but Jesus’ estimation. Look, I love the guy for interfering with the violence of the old shitty Jewish laws. Kudos to him. He did some wonderful stuff, given the time and the culture, as far as I can tell. But he also set the seeds for a lot of guilt and shame. Now it is not merely acts, but internal reactions - and quite human ones - that are sins. I think the Jesus shift to expecting harmony between the internal and the external has a positive side. I also want a harmony there and of course what is inside is important. But his way of doing this included making everyone a mortal sinners for natural attractions to the opposite sex.
I think the spirit of the Bible - or spirits of the Bible - are a mixed bag. Some good stuff, some improvements on what went before, but also some really terrible stuff, including some of what jesus said (according to the Bible).
mentalfloss.com/article/67108/ti … real-fight
Bruce Lee and Jesus are very hard to follow both at the same time.
OK
Oh, I love the nasty kind gesture to an asshole. I think that can be a great response. But that’s only for real assholes. And they have to be the right kind who will feel bad after you do that. Otherwise it is a want of some fine acting.
Sure, I am not suggesting it is practical to slap back all the time. Nor am I saying that the opposite of turn the other cheek should be a rule. If some say X is true. If I disagree, it may because I think it is only sometimes true or rarely true. I may think it is never true. But there is no reason to assume I mean -X is true. Or one should always -X.