Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way in who they follow, all the rest follow some different teacher of their choosing.
In no sense is that true of a Catholic Mass. Nor, from what I hear, of an Orthodox liturgy though I’m no expert there. It might be true of some Evangelical Sunday worship services but they cannot be called a “Mass”
Sorry, can you help me understand what you mean here?
I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
So I'm struggling to understand how this would differ across other Christian denominations, so I'd really appreciate a better awareness of what you mean here.
I have down voted that comment because HN is not Reddit and that comment is nothing but a cheap shot with no substance. If the commenter had explained why they feel that way then the comment would have been just fine.
Considering it responded to cheap incorrect analogy and was actually correct, I find it ok. Disagreeing with one liner low effort comment should not require whole essay. It should require exact same effort as was put into the original comment.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
I disagree with the idea that it was "actually correct". I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic" (as another commenter suggests). And because I disagree I would love to engage with their criticism, but I can't because the entire counter-argument was "no".
The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".
I appreciate that the authors didn't go too far into speculation territory, but this being the internet I'll do it anyway.
The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.
I feel much more at peace now that my sex drive has decreased. Before this feeling it was my primary goal and I was very successful but now I couldn't care less about sex.
So I often wonder about yogis and saints - are they better humans than me? But i dont think so when I read about people like mlk jr and jfk and how they were terrible people when it came to women, even worse than me.
I'm a 62 year old straight man. I've described the change this way.
I've always been able to see a handsome man, say Pierce Brosnan back in the day, and say "he is quite handsome" without have a whit of sexual stirrings. When I was young seeing a beautiful woman would trigger desires, but now it is like looking at handsome men. I can recognize they are attractive but it is purely intellectual with no emotional or hormonal attachment.
Masayoshi Takanaka is a virtuosic City Pop guitarist who saw a recent renewed popularity while riding the resurgence of the genre's popularity. When asked in an interview if there would be a new album, he stated no, saying that humans lose their creative drive as their sexual energy declines, and this is why he could not produce a new album.
At risk of sounding insensitive, MLK Jr. and JFK were only on the farm team as far as being yogis and saints.
For the pro league some names you need: Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Brahmananda, Sri Yogananda Paramahansa, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (yes, really), Chogyam Trungpa (yes, really). And many more names beside.
Francis of Assisi, Lao Tzu, Gurdjieff (yes, really), Blavatsky (yes), Zhang Guolao, Nasreddin, Jesus of Nazareth.. These last three all have been known to ride a donkey backwards.
I relate. There was this one saint, Augustine I think, who, entering puberty, realized that the mind-control orbs dangling between his legs were gonna interfere with his life-goals, so he cut em off.
Maybe that's the smart thing to do. I mean, does "fight and fuck" really enter into your saner agenda? Do you want it to?
That was definitely not St. Augustine, who was well-known for a lifestyle of patronizing harlots before his conversion of heart.
Apparently, this action is attributed to Origen of Alexandria, who was never "canonized" and is not regarded as a saint in any Christian tradition. It has consistently been viewed as a bad idea and a sin to be castrating or mutilating anyone's genitals, even your own.
Origen was anathematized because some people believed he taught universal salvation, i.e. everybody, regardless of belief, will ultimately be reunited with god. Whether he taught that is debatable, but certainly much of his exegesis was quite abstract, which tracks with this argument that Origen likely didn't castrate himself: https://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/did-ori... Likewise, he was a polarizing figure during a formative time in the development of Christianity, so it's quite believable his opponents would spread gossip about him. In the first few centuries there were some virulently anti-sex (and anti-women) Christian cults that preached that any sex, including marital sex, was dirty and demanded things like lay continence or lauded castration.[1] Despite clerical continence being normative, mainstream Christianity forcefully rejected the notion that there was anything inherently wrong with (marital) sex, so to claim Origen castrated himself would be to insinuate his beliefs aligned with radical, non-orthodox, sexually deviant (in a sense) groups.
EDIT: [1] I originally used celibacy. But celibacy and continence are distinct. Celibacy implies continence, because only only married couples are permitted to have sex, but even married couples can be continent. Therein lies the confusion about the origins of modern-day Roman Catholic clerical celibacy and its relation to early clerical practices, including practices of the apostles.
You're likely thinking of Origen although people question whether it's true.
>Maybe that's the smart thing to do
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols:
"The Church combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice, its “remedy,” is castration. It never inquires “how can a desire be spiritualised, beautified, deified?”—In all ages it has laid the weight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation of sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and revenge).—But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking life itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life."
I’m nearly 40 and my sex drive has always been insane and to this day is higher (much higher) than young people I know. I don’t have sex any less than I did when I was younger but being less angry and less dissatisfied with one’s life just seems to be part of getting older. I know there’s that (hilarious) line in The Republic from the old man about not being a slave to his sex drive anymore but I always took that as more of a ‘women are more trouble than they’re worth’ kind of thing. Surely sex is a sine qua non of being satisfied with one’s life.
Libido motivates so many things in life that I’m not sure that I’d be bothered getting out of bed without it.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The laws of physics wrote that sentence, it was fated to be written when this deterministic system of a universe was set off like a mechanism. Or maybe not, let me use my non-free will to choose to say.. Aubergine. Periwinkle. Streptococcus.
There's also no evidence that mystical leprechauns exist. Do you seriously consider their possible existence in the decisions you make? But somehow, we all seem to presume free will exists in virtually every part of society.
Makes sense, believers are on a journey of sanctification. The first battle is won when your soul is saved. The second battle is a lifelong struggle between the flesh and the spirit.
In a sense, Sunday mass is just an all-hands where you're told the CEO's vision and you get to think about how aligned you are with the vision.
Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way in who they follow, all the rest follow some different teacher of their choosing.
> Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way
I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
Sadly, they're not the majority, but living this way is pretty hard so it's not that surprising.
Yikes! Way to raise mammon up to the altar of God.
CEOs are psychopaths.
Some pastors are psychopaths.
Sorry, I forgot pastors existed. I assumed OP meant "God".
Yes, but it is not requirement. You can be a pastor or rise in hierarchy without being psychopath. For CEOs, the selection strongly favors sociopaths.
In no sense is that true of a Catholic Mass. Nor, from what I hear, of an Orthodox liturgy though I’m no expert there. It might be true of some Evangelical Sunday worship services but they cannot be called a “Mass”
> In no sense is that true of a Catholic Mass.
Sorry, can you help me understand what you mean here?
I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
So I'm struggling to understand how this would differ across other Christian denominations, so I'd really appreciate a better awareness of what you mean here.
The American mind can't comprehend European Catholicism
This is downvoted ... and absolutely true.
I have down voted that comment because HN is not Reddit and that comment is nothing but a cheap shot with no substance. If the commenter had explained why they feel that way then the comment would have been just fine.
Considering it responded to cheap incorrect analogy and was actually correct, I find it ok. Disagreeing with one liner low effort comment should not require whole essay. It should require exact same effort as was put into the original comment.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
I disagree with the idea that it was "actually correct". I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic" (as another commenter suggests). And because I disagree I would love to engage with their criticism, but I can't because the entire counter-argument was "no".
The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".
I appreciate that the authors didn't go too far into speculation territory, but this being the internet I'll do it anyway.
The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.
I feel much more at peace now that my sex drive has decreased. Before this feeling it was my primary goal and I was very successful but now I couldn't care less about sex.
So I often wonder about yogis and saints - are they better humans than me? But i dont think so when I read about people like mlk jr and jfk and how they were terrible people when it came to women, even worse than me.
I'm a 62 year old straight man. I've described the change this way.
I've always been able to see a handsome man, say Pierce Brosnan back in the day, and say "he is quite handsome" without have a whit of sexual stirrings. When I was young seeing a beautiful woman would trigger desires, but now it is like looking at handsome men. I can recognize they are attractive but it is purely intellectual with no emotional or hormonal attachment.
There is flourishing and detachment - https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-8
And there is flourishing and attachment - https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-7
Perhaps Freud was right about the libido!
Masayoshi Takanaka is a virtuosic City Pop guitarist who saw a recent renewed popularity while riding the resurgence of the genre's popularity. When asked in an interview if there would be a new album, he stated no, saying that humans lose their creative drive as their sexual energy declines, and this is why he could not produce a new album.
I have to admit, it is nice when that edge comes off a little bit. Such a perpetual monkey on your back.
Goodness, yes. I’m not even that old yet but just no longer being possessed by the relentless drive of my 20s makes life much more peaceful.
At risk of sounding insensitive, MLK Jr. and JFK were only on the farm team as far as being yogis and saints.
For the pro league some names you need: Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Brahmananda, Sri Yogananda Paramahansa, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (yes, really), Chogyam Trungpa (yes, really). And many more names beside.
Francis of Assisi, Lao Tzu, Gurdjieff (yes, really), Blavatsky (yes), Zhang Guolao, Nasreddin, Jesus of Nazareth.. These last three all have been known to ride a donkey backwards.
I mean, if we're including Blavatsky, then we probably need to include Crowley (even though he'd have been very upset to be added to this company).
L. Ron Hubbard (yes, really)
I relate. There was this one saint, Augustine I think, who, entering puberty, realized that the mind-control orbs dangling between his legs were gonna interfere with his life-goals, so he cut em off.
Maybe that's the smart thing to do. I mean, does "fight and fuck" really enter into your saner agenda? Do you want it to?
That was definitely not St. Augustine, who was well-known for a lifestyle of patronizing harlots before his conversion of heart.
Apparently, this action is attributed to Origen of Alexandria, who was never "canonized" and is not regarded as a saint in any Christian tradition. It has consistently been viewed as a bad idea and a sin to be castrating or mutilating anyone's genitals, even your own.
Origen was anathematized because some people believed he taught universal salvation, i.e. everybody, regardless of belief, will ultimately be reunited with god. Whether he taught that is debatable, but certainly much of his exegesis was quite abstract, which tracks with this argument that Origen likely didn't castrate himself: https://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/did-ori... Likewise, he was a polarizing figure during a formative time in the development of Christianity, so it's quite believable his opponents would spread gossip about him. In the first few centuries there were some virulently anti-sex (and anti-women) Christian cults that preached that any sex, including marital sex, was dirty and demanded things like lay continence or lauded castration.[1] Despite clerical continence being normative, mainstream Christianity forcefully rejected the notion that there was anything inherently wrong with (marital) sex, so to claim Origen castrated himself would be to insinuate his beliefs aligned with radical, non-orthodox, sexually deviant (in a sense) groups.
EDIT: [1] I originally used celibacy. But celibacy and continence are distinct. Celibacy implies continence, because only only married couples are permitted to have sex, but even married couples can be continent. Therein lies the confusion about the origins of modern-day Roman Catholic clerical celibacy and its relation to early clerical practices, including practices of the apostles.
You're likely thinking of Origen although people question whether it's true.
>Maybe that's the smart thing to do
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols:
"The Church combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice, its “remedy,” is castration. It never inquires “how can a desire be spiritualised, beautified, deified?”—In all ages it has laid the weight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation of sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and revenge).—But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking life itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life."
My man Nietzsche, of reason and passion, Apollo and Dionysus. Rest in eternal restlessness of the spirit, to live and suffer the beauty.
Were you not able to get laid or something?
I’m nearly 40 and my sex drive has always been insane and to this day is higher (much higher) than young people I know. I don’t have sex any less than I did when I was younger but being less angry and less dissatisfied with one’s life just seems to be part of getting older. I know there’s that (hilarious) line in The Republic from the old man about not being a slave to his sex drive anymore but I always took that as more of a ‘women are more trouble than they’re worth’ kind of thing. Surely sex is a sine qua non of being satisfied with one’s life.
Libido motivates so many things in life that I’m not sure that I’d be bothered getting out of bed without it.
>Were you not able to get laid or something?
The GP did say "and I was very successful", perhaps your gigantic libido has destroyed your reading comprehension.
There’s no serious evidence that humans or any animal has free will.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The laws of physics wrote that sentence, it was fated to be written when this deterministic system of a universe was set off like a mechanism. Or maybe not, let me use my non-free will to choose to say.. Aubergine. Periwinkle. Streptococcus.
I didn't say there is evidence of absence.
There's also no evidence that mystical leprechauns exist. Do you seriously consider their possible existence in the decisions you make? But somehow, we all seem to presume free will exists in virtually every part of society.
Category error.
Makes sense, believers are on a journey of sanctification. The first battle is won when your soul is saved. The second battle is a lifelong struggle between the flesh and the spirit.
They are in constant opposition.
> It’s pretty clear that the typical American is always on the lookout for ways to improve their lives on a whole bunch of different dimensions.
This is not clear to me at all.
I'm in my 30s and I'm still a dumbass, six fig job still living check to check
I make 40k and in my 30s and still able to save at least $200 per check, are you that spoiled still?
Or do you still have 5 simultaneous dating app subscriptions you haven't canceled?
that feeling will pass, brains keep on developing right through mid-40's. But I implore you to find a great accountant asap, you get what you pay for.
Move out of CA.
fr dawg get outta dodge
August 29, 1997
Judging from the chart the answer is TLDR: We don’t.