Self Improvement Books

[muscleupcrohn]

What's good for me may not be good for you, all comes down to extend the "personal happiness seeking" to not interfere with the happiness of others in a negative way. Trying to archive a "global good" leads to totalitarian utilitarianism.

This is why Ayn Rand is right about selfishness and sacrifice. "I will not sacrifice myself to others -nor ask others to sacrifice themselves for me."
Sounds to me like a perfect way of social interaction, leading to a happy -and free life.

I agree entirely with that. If you won't ask others to sacrifice for you, then you also likely won't seek to hurt them to better yourself, which is part of what I was trying to say, and reflects my stance on government, which is influenced by Ayn Rand. In a sentence, I believe you should be free do do or not do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to do or not do what they want.

My point regarding the Stoic perspective is that they believe we can achieve happiness from ourselves, that we do not have to rely on others, be it people, things, or circumstances, to be happy, so there would never be a need to interfere with the happiness of others in a negative way in an attempt to gain happiness for ourselves. I still don't know if I'm explaining this in a way that is understandable or not.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Cgkone , you liked my Ayn Rand-Objectivism post about sacrifice, may I point out that it is entirely against a christian world view, where sacrifice is venerated? You are led into dark atheistic territory here.

LOL

But Ayn Rand would say that it is our choice to derive and pursue happiness in any way that we chose, so long as it does not harm others. With that said, it is entirely possible for someone to decide that they want to put others first and make "sacrifices." If that is what they think is the right thing to do, and what they think will make them happy, then good for them. My only comment would be that it'd be better to learn to enjoy doing these things and enjoy this moment, this life on earth, than being miserable trying to please God in the hopes of going to heaven or avoiding hell. If you want to put others first and sacrifice because you think it's what God wants you to do, I'd advise learning to enjoy doing these things for God instead of being miserable while doing them. I know for certain that I have this moment, so I can make the most of it and try to be happy. If I am always waiting until some far-off time to be happy, I'll never be happy, as it's always right now, and later is never here.

 

[Cgkone]

Cgkone , you liked my Ayn Rand-Objectivism post about sacrifice, may I point out that it is entirely against a christian world view, where sacrifice is venerated? You are led into dark atheistic territory here.

LOL

I did like it.
I love individualism
Each person is responsible for themselves
I am my own problem.....not societies.

 

[hairygrandpa]

Quoting myself haha.

For example, I have no right to complain that someone hooks up with a lot of girls and I don't if I'm not willing to do the things that he does to get what he gets. He goes to the club three times a week, I don't. He buys girls a bunch of drinks and still sometimes doesn't get lucky, I don't. He pretends he cares about girls and wants to get to know them, I won't lie to people to get something from them. He may have the pleasure of hook ups, but I have the pleasure of having my nights free (not having to go to clubs), having more money to do what I want, and having a clean conscience and not selling my dignity, honesty, and reputation.

Or working out. I say that I have no right to complain that elite bodybuilders are bigger than me if I am not willing to do what they do to get so big. They are willing to potentially break the law to obtain various drugs, I am not. They are willing to take on the potential adverse health effects, I am not. They are willing to eat a ton of food and then do long and difficult cuts, I don't take it to those extremes. Why then should I think I'm entitled to their results if I'm not willing to obtain it with their work?

Apply this to anything and see how it changes your perspective on things.

All that sounds good in theory, but be honest, some does not apply to the real world. Here an example.
Police stopped a friend of mine and confiscated his bike. He was falsely accused of DUI. After he was going public, the police chef agreed to give the bike back if he would accept a small fine for driving without a helmet (he had a helmet). The police chef wanted to keep his face. Now, turns out my friend had too much pride to agree to the deal -and until today has no bike.
So much for dignity, honesty and reputation.


Edit: I mean its honorable to stay your ground -but on the other hand it maybe detrimental, one has to chose wisely

 

[hairygrandpa]

I agree entirely with that. If you won't ask others to sacrifice for you, then you also likely won't seek to hurt them to better yourself, which is part of what I was trying to say, and reflects my stance on government, which is influenced by Ayn Rand. In a sentence, I believe you should be free do do or not do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with someone else's right to do or not do what they want.

My point regarding the Stoic perspective is that they believe we can achieve happiness from ourselves, that we do not have to rely on others, be it people, things, or circumstances, to be happy, so there would never be a need to interfere with the happiness of others in a negative way in an attempt to gain happiness for ourselves. I still don't know if I'm explaining this in a way that is understandable or not.

Aristoteles influence on Rand can not be denied!

 

[muscleupcrohn]

All that sounds good in theory, but be honest, some does not apply to the real world. Here an example.
Police stopped a friend of mine and confiscated his bike. He was falsely accused of DUI. After he was going public, the police chef agreed to give the bike back if he would accept a small fine for driving without a helmet (he had a helmet). The police chef wanted to keep his face. Now, turns out my friend had too much pride to agree to the deal -and until today has no bike.
So much for dignity, honesty and reputation.

Who are you to say that his bike was worth more to him than his perceived retention of dignity? Only he can determine that, even if I agree that the logical thing would seem to have been the other choice. If he regrets that decision now, then he would have made the wrong choice, but if he values his dignity and honesty more than his bike, how can you say he made the wrong decision?

 

[Cgkone]

Cgkone , you liked my Ayn Rand-Objectivism post about sacrifice, may I point out that it is entirely against a christian world view, where sacrifice is venerated? You are led into dark atheistic territory here.

LOL

Jefferson envisioned a society of Yeoman farmers.
Basically growing enough food to provide you and your family.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Aristoteles influence on Rand can not be denied!

I have a book of Aristotle's work that I've been meaning to get around to reading. I've read some of Plato's dialogues, and of course the Stoics, but Aristotle seems very interesting from the little I've read so far. I loved Ayn Rand's Anthem; I read it in high school, where I found a box full of the book just sitting unused in a closet. I can understand why the school district/system wouldn't want to encourage such individualism though haha.

 

[rascal14]

I like the honesty and humility that's emanating from this post. Lol.

I am aware that you specifically mentioned that you don't want a religious answer, or something like that. Unfortunately for me, I live, eat, and breathe Jesus Christ. It's all I know. Lol.

Do you still want to hear my Christianity-biased advice? If you don't want to, it's fine. I sincerely think that you'd find the right answer without my help.

Yeah man go ahead, I don’t mind it.

 

[hairygrandpa]

I did like it.
I love individualism
Each person is responsible for themselves
I am my own problem.....not societies.

That is okay. I merely pointed out that Objectivism is not open to religious beliefs of any kind -and seeing self sacrifice as evil, is as contradictory as it gets, when it comes to Christianity (Jesus sacrificing himself to us is venerated as the ultimate "good").

For everyone here who would like to learn a bit more about A. Rand's views, I highly suggest to look up the interview of Ayn Rand with Mike Wallace on youtube, I promise its not boring!

 

[hairygrandpa]

Jefferson envisioned a society of Yeoman farmers.
Basically growing enough food to provide you and your family.

That's interesting, will look it up!

 

[Cgkone]

You gentlemen have a nice night.
I'm going to light this 1:1 cbd/thc
Shark shock joint.
Super mellow no paranoia.
Thanks for the good read its been great!

 

[muscleupcrohn]

That is okay. I merely pointed out that Objectivism is not open to religious beliefs of any kind -and seeing self sacrifice as evil, is as contradictory as it gets, when it comes to Christianity (Jesus sacrificing himself to us is venerated as the ultimate "good").

For everyone here who would like to learn a bit more about A. Rand's views, I highly suggest to look up the interview of Ayn Rand with Mike Wallace on youtube, I promise its not boring!

But wouldn't one be free to "self-sacrifice" if they believe doing so is in their best interest and/or will bring them happiness? It could then be argued that "self-sacrifice," if done willingly, is not really "sacrifice" at all, as the person doing it believes it is in their best interest.

It's really the idea of "mandatory/compulsory" self-sacrifice that would be "evil."

 

[hairygrandpa]

Who are you to say that his bike was worth more to him than his perceived retention of dignity? Only he can determine that, even if I agree that the logical thing would seem to have been the other choice. If he regrets that decision now, then he would have made the wrong choice, but if he values his dignity and honesty more than his bike, how can you say he made the wrong decision?

You are right, his decision wasn't the best -but his pride is intact, LOL.
I told him to swallow his pride and pay the $10. He ended up lending money from me to get a new bike...
My view: "See? The world around us is fugged up! Be prepared that your honesty and goodness is repaid with animosity and theft. Being "good" does often not bare the fruits you expect."

 

[muscleupcrohn]

People always say "do what you love," but I think there's also value to "learning to love what you do." That doesn't mean don't strive to be able to do what you love to do, only that you're doing what your doing now; if you have to do something in the meantime while working towards something "better," you may as well at least learn to enjoy it, as you're doing it either way.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You are right, his decision wasn't the best -but his pride is intact, LOL.
I told him to swallow his pride and pay the $10. He ended up lending money from me to get a new bike...
My view: "See? The world around us is fugged up! Be prepared that your honesty and goodness is repaid with animosity and theft. Being "good" does often not bare the fruits you expect."

I mean, excessive pride can be dangerous too, particularly if he took this course of action to preserve his image to others, as we are ultimately not in control of what others think; aiming to please others only sets us up for failure and misery. Most people don't even like themselves, how can we expect everyone to like us? My point was that without know exactly what he did, why he did it, and how he feels about it now, we can't really say if it's a good decision or not.

This is a case of weighing the alternatives. Losing his bike is huge financially/monetarily; accepting the fine and lying is only a small hit to his pride/reputation. That means that, at least at the time, he valued his pride MUCH more than his money. Perhaps he changed his mind later, perhaps he didn't.

We all draw the line somewhere. Some lines may seem more reasonable, while some may seem more extreme in either direction (towards excessive money or excessive pride/honesty/etc). Some people would be willing to do whatever is necessary to get rich, and some would do anything to preserve their integrity. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and aren't always consistent in their values and lines. But I think considering things in this way can help one be happy and make good decisions, if only by forcing us to slow down and think about things before rushing into decisions.

 

[hairygrandpa]

But wouldn't one be free to "self-sacrifice" if they believe doing so is in their best interest and/or will bring them happiness? It could then be argued that "self-sacrifice," if done willingly, is not really "sacrifice" at all, as the person doing it believes it is in their best interest.

It's really the idea of "mandatory/compulsory" self-sacrifice that would be "evil."

Yes, in the interview with Mike Wallace it came up. If its in your self interest, you can make sacrifices. But its intertwined with "whom to love" and why the notion to "love your enemy/neighbor" is ridiculous as it would be indiscriminately, because the currency of love is virtue. See the Mike Wallace interview, its awesome -and eye opening.

 

[hairygrandpa]

I mean, excessive pride can be dangerous too, particularly if he took this course of action to preserve his image to others, as we are ultimately not in control of what others think; aiming to please others only sets us up for failure and misery. Most people don't even like themselves, how can we expect everyone to like us? My point was that without know exactly what he did, why he did it, and how he feels about it now, we can't really say if it's a good decision or not.

This is a case of weighing the alternatives. Losing his bike is huge financially/monetarily; accepting the fine and lying is only a small hit to his pride/reputation. That means that, at least at the time, he valued his pride MUCH more than his money. Perhaps he changed his mind later, perhaps he didn't.

We all draw the line somewhere. Some lines may seem more reasonable, while some may seem more extreme in either direction (towards excessive money or excessive pride/honesty/etc). Some people would be willing to do whatever is necessary to get rich, and some would do anything to preserve their integrity. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and aren't always consistent in their values and lines. But I think considering things in this way can help one be happy and make good decisions, if only by forcing us to slow down and think about things before rushing into decisions.

Yep, its all about a "line". Most of us will agree that harming animals is "bad". Very few of us are vegan, right? That makes us willfully bad people towards animals. The excuse that we have is the "line". We don't extend the invisible "morality line" to include animals, we adhere to speciesism, while others move the line further. I guess what I want to say with this is, we all have an idea what is good -or bad, investigating further, the "line" gets blurred.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yes, in the interview with Mike Wallace it came up. If its in your self interest, you can make sacrifices. But its intertwined with "whom to love" and why the notion to "love your enemy/neighbor" is ridiculous as it would be indiscriminately, because the currency of love is virtue. See the Mike Wallace interview, its awesome -and eye opening.

I'll check it out. I do think that adhering too strictly, as in entirely unwaveringly even in the slightest, to any belief/philosophy/system is limiting and ultimately a restraint. I learned this a lot from Bruce Lee, who was arguably just as good of a philosopher as a martial artist.

"Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system."

"All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns."

"...truth exists outside all molds."

perhaps more controversially:

"Styles tend to not only separate men — because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

Because of styles, people are separated. They are not united together because styles became laws. But the original founder of the style started out hypotheses, and now it has become the grospel truth. People that go into them became their product. It doesn't matter how you are, who you are, how you are structured, how you are built, how you are made. It doesn't matter. You just go in there and be that product. And that, to me is not life.

Take no thought of who is right or wrong or who is better than. Be not for or against."

TL;DR: I'll watch the video now, but I don't adhere unwaveringly to any style/philosophy/system, even Ayn Rand's. Some people would argue that it makes me simply a lukewarm/half-hearted Christian, Stoic, objectivist, etc, but I would respond by saying that I don't define myself entirely as a Christian or a Stoic or an objectivist.

It's easier to say what you aren't than what you are. One way I seek the truth is to eliminate what is not true. I may never get to the whole truth, but I'll move closer and eliminate wrong beliefs and wrong actions. Like Bruce Lee said,

"In building a statue, a sculptor doesn't keep adding clay to his subject. Actually, he keeps chiselling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions. Thus, contrary to other styles, being wise in Jeet Kune-Do doesn't mean adding more; it means to minimize, in other words to hack away the unessential.

It is not daily increase but daily decrease; hack away the unessential."

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yep, its all about a "line". Most of us will agree that harming animals is "bad". Very few of us are vegan, right? That makes us willfully bad people towards animals. The excuse that we have is the "line". We don't extend the invisible "morality line" to include animals, we adhere to speciesism, while others move the line further. I guess what I want to say with this is, we all have an idea what is good -or bad, investigating further, the "line" gets blurred.

True. Thich Nhat Hanh, a vegan Buddhist monk, says that we shouldn't even be too proud or brag about being vegan, as even the water we boil our vegetables in contains microorganisms, and then there's the plants themselves. We all draw the line somewhere. Some people won't eat any animals, some will only eat fish, etc. Different religions have different views that muddy the waters even further too haha.

Even vegetarians and vegans draw the line somewhere. Most of us, myself included, wear clothes and use technology that, in all likelihood, is the product of some less-than-humane treatment of workers in some foreign country. We all draw the line somewhere, and that line often changes or isn't entirely rational or logical, but it's there somewhere I suppose.

All I can suggest is thinking about where you draw that line, and try not to be upset at the outcome of a situation if you decided which side of the line to act on. A lot of people don't really have a line, or a moral code or compass, or at least don't really take the time to sit down and think about it, and if they follow it. I do think having some moral guideline helps, even if it's just that, a guide, not an unwavering wall.

 

[hairygrandpa]

I'll check it out. I do think that adhering too strictly, as in entirely unwaveringly even in the slightest, to any belief/philosophy/system is limiting and ultimately a restraint. I learned this a lot from Bruce Lee, who was arguably just as good of a philosopher as a martial artist.

"Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system."

"All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns."

"...truth exists outside all molds."

perhaps more controversially:

"Styles tend to not only separate men — because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

Because of styles, people are separated. They are not united together because styles became laws. But the original founder of the style started out hypotheses, and now it has become the grospel truth. People that go into them became their product. It doesn't matter how you are, who you are, how you are structured, how you are built, how you are made. It doesn't matter. You just go in there and be that product. And that, to me is not life.

Take no thought of who is right or wrong or who is better than. Be not for or against."

TL;DR: I'll watch the video now, but I don't adhere unwaveringly to any style/philosophy/system, even Ayn Rand's. Some people would argue that it makes me simply a lukewarm/half-hearted Christian, Stoic, objectivist, etc, but I would respond by saying that I don't define myself entirely as a Christian or a Stoic or an objectivist.

It's easier to say what you aren't than what you are. One way I seek the truth is to eliminate what is not true. I may never get to the whole truth, but I'll move closer and eliminate wrong beliefs and wrong actions. Like Bruce Lee said,

"In building a statue, a sculptor doesn't keep adding clay to his subject. Actually, he keeps chiselling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions. Thus, contrary to other styles, being wise in Jeet Kune-Do doesn't mean adding more; it means to minimize, in other words to hack away the unessential.

It is not daily increase but daily decrease; hack away the unessential."

I can understand that, besides Ayn Rand's teachings doesn't encompass all philosophical aspects of life and is more economically -and politically driven. Also, very few persons can entirely identify with her philosophy, as it is almost exclusively a philosophy for the innovators and artists. The term "second handers" explains it.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Yeah man go ahead, I don’t mind it.

First things first, let's talk physiology. You said you struggle to wake up and get up. Hear me out on this. You may very well just be suffering from low morning cortisol, which is VERY common among stressed out people. Cortisol must be high in the morning and low at night. To people who are stressed, this gets reversed. Before we get to the fancy stuff, let's make sure we get the real stuff taken cared of.

What are the major stressors in your life? College? Women? Work?

If everything is fine and you actually consider yourself to be relatively free from excess stress, then that's when I will share my deeper insights about philosophical stuff. Lol

To all who read this, aren't I smart and knowledgeable? I'd love some rep points if you can spare any. Lmao!

But anyway... Rascal, how's everything going?

 

[hairygrandpa]

I'll check it out. I do think that adhering too strictly, as in entirely unwaveringly even in the slightest, to any belief/philosophy/system is limiting and ultimately a restraint. I learned this a lot from Bruce Lee, who was arguably just as good of a philosopher as a martial artist.

"Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system."

"All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns."

"...truth exists outside all molds."

perhaps more controversially:

"Styles tend to not only separate men — because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

Because of styles, people are separated. They are not united together because styles became laws. But the original founder of the style started out hypotheses, and now it has become the grospel truth. People that go into them became their product. It doesn't matter how you are, who you are, how you are structured, how you are built, how you are made. It doesn't matter. You just go in there and be that product. And that, to me is not life.

Take no thought of who is right or wrong or who is better than. Be not for or against."

TL;DR: I'll watch the video now, but I don't adhere unwaveringly to any style/philosophy/system, even Ayn Rand's. Some people would argue that it makes me simply a lukewarm/half-hearted Christian, Stoic, objectivist, etc, but I would respond by saying that I don't define myself entirely as a Christian or a Stoic or an objectivist.

It's easier to say what you aren't than what you are. One way I seek the truth is to eliminate what is not true. I may never get to the whole truth, but I'll move closer and eliminate wrong beliefs and wrong actions. Like Bruce Lee said,

"In building a statue, a sculptor doesn't keep adding clay to his subject. Actually, he keeps chiselling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions. Thus, contrary to other styles, being wise in Jeet Kune-Do doesn't mean adding more; it means to minimize, in other words to hack away the unessential.

It is not daily increase but daily decrease; hack away the unessential."

While seeking the truth, isn't it prudent to take an agnostic stance until evidence arises for a belief?
Bruce Lee , IMHO he was at least agnostic, if not atheist.

I go as far as to say, if a god presents himself to me, it would make me a believer -but not a worshiper.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I can understand that, besides Ayn Rand's teachings doesn't encompass all philosophical aspects of life and is more economically -and politically driven. Also, very few persons can entirely identify with her philosophy, as it is almost exclusively a philosophy for the innovators and artists. The term "second handers" explains it.

Watching the interview now. Rand says that man MUST sacrifice himself to others, or has a DUTY to sacrifice himself to others. That "man needs to serve others." It still seems that Rand, or anyone, would respect one's choice to express their individuality by "self-sacrificing." But if someone WILLINGLY "sacrifices," that is if they believe that it is in their best interest to "sacrifice," that sacrificing will bring them happiness, then they are acting in their best interest, and their sacrifice is, ironically, "in their best interest," as Rand says we should act according to.

Rand's big thing is that no one should be forced to do anything. Hell, even Jesus himself said not to force his beliefs on anyone; he told his apostles that if people didn't listen to them, to leave that town. It was later Christians perverting Jesus' teachings for their own agendas, to help them acquire power, land, and wealth. If people voluntary decide to put others first, I think Rand could respect that, even if she thinks it's a silly or illogical thing to do.

 

[hairygrandpa]

True. Thich Nhat Hanh, a vegan Buddhist monk, says that we shouldn't even be too proud or brag about being vegan, as even the water we boil our vegetables in contains microorganisms, and then there's the plants themselves. We all draw the line somewhere. Some people won't eat any animals, some will only eat fish, etc. Different religions have different views that muddy the waters even further too haha.

Even vegetarians and vegans draw the line somewhere. Most of us, myself included, wear clothes and use technology that, in all likelihood, is the product of some less-than-humane treatment of workers in some foreign country. We all draw the line somewhere, and that line often changes or isn't entirely rational or logical, but it's there somewhere I suppose.

All I can suggest is thinking about where you draw that line, and try not to be upset at the outcome of a situation if you decided which side of the line to act on. A lot of people don't really have a line, or a moral code or compass, or at least don't really take the time to sit down and think about it, and if they follow it. I do think having some moral guideline helps, even if it's just that, a guide, not an unwavering wall.

True, 100%. Talking about it motivates me to question it all again... I wonder what aliens would think about us. We preach love and are bombing ourselves to oblivion about resources -or beliefs, driving little metal boxes on rubber wheels ... isn't that cute?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

While seeking the truth, isn't it prudent to take an agnostic stance until evidence arises for a belief?
Bruce Lee , IMHO he was at least agnostic, if not atheist.

I go as far as to say, if a god presents himself to me, it would make me a believer -but not a worshiper.

I don't adhere unwaveringly to Bruce Lee's philosophy either; even the idea of having no philosophy can become a limiting philosophy itself!

I can have faith in something if I think it is in my best interest, or if it helps make me happy without harming others. I don't masquerade my beliefs as facts, or the absolute truth, that's my point. If evidence comes along and confirms my faith, I call if fact. If evidence disproves my faith, I change my faith to reflect the truth, and now it's a fact, not just faith. The Buddha said not to believe what he says just because he says it, but that we should test it ourselves before believing it.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

True, 100%. Talking about it motivates me to question it all again... I wonder what aliens would think about us. We preach love and are bombing ourselves to oblivion about resources -or beliefs, driving little metal boxes on rubber wheels ... isn't that cute?

I think that we're all hypocrites on some level. Whether it's preaching love at the barrel of a gun or the tip of a blade, or preaching tolerance and open-mindedness while attempting to silencing anyone who disagrees with us, we often say one thing and do another. Myself, I'm not perfect, but I try to be consistent in my actions.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Rand just said that she wouldn't view helping her husband as sacrifice, as she finds pleasure in it, she thinks it's in her best interest. For that reason, if someone believed that following the teachings of Jesus, to put others first, is in their best interest, that it will bring them happiness, or get them into heaven, or keep them from going to hell, then it's not really a sacrifice, as they're doing it willingly and they believe it is in their best interest.

I think her main issue is with people forcing their beliefs on others, or it getting to the point where people believe that they have to do something that isn't in their best interest.

I suppose that you could argue that voluntary "self-sacrifice" isn't really sacrifice, as crazy as that sounds.

 

[hairygrandpa]

Watching the interview now. Rand says that man MUST sacrifice himself to others, or has a DUTY to sacrifice himself to others. That "man needs to serve others." It still seems that Rand, or anyone, would respect one's choice to express their individuality by "self-sacrificing." But if someone WILLINGLY "sacrifices," that is if they believe that it is in their best interest to "sacrifice," that sacrificing will bring them happiness, then they are acting in their best interest, and their sacrifice is, ironically, "in their best interest," as Rand says we should act according to.

Rand's big thing is that no one should be forced to do anything. Hell, even Jesus himself said not to force his beliefs on anyone; he told his apostles that if people didn't listen to them, to leave that town. It was later Christians perverting Jesus' teachings for their own agendas, to help them acquire power, land, and wealth. If people voluntary decide to put others first, I think Rand could respect that, even if she thinks it's a silly or illogical thing to do.

If you watch further it becomes more clear.
As I see it:
Its about giving to others as a duty to be considered "good", even though she never would have accepted anything from others, nor asked for it.
The analogy would be:
If I am without work, I never would rely on begging, by accepting anything without giving something in return. No beggar gets anything from me, because if I would be out of work, I would at least mow your lawn for the change you offer me.

 

[Zombocalypse]

While seeking the truth, isn't it prudent to take an agnostic stance until evidence arises for a belief?
Bruce Lee , IMHO he was at least agnostic, if not atheist.

I go as far as to say, if a god presents himself to me, it would make me a believer -but not a worshiper.

I highly recommend you look up Pascal's Wager if you aren't familiar with it yet. Lots of skeptics try to poke holes on it, but it's a very solid argument for why you should be a believer.

Another thing, please hear me out...

God is real and He cares about us. I'm not guaranteeing anything. I'm not a fortune-teller. But I'd like to make a bet with you...

Sometime tonight, go somewhere private and pray. Seek out God with sincerity. Ask Him to show Himself to you. Be courteous and respectful. Be curious and open-minded. Ask Him something like... "Lord, I am seeking you out. Please show me a sign that you are here. I would like to see reasons to believe in you and commune with you."

After that, give it about two weeks. You'd be surprised by what will happen. Trust me.

If two weeks pass and you notice nothing, I will buy you a whopper.

There was a guy in the past, God bless him, who made a similar bet with me and won.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I highly recommend you look up Pascal's Wager if you aren't familiar with it yet. Lots of skeptics try to poke holes on it, but it's a very solid argument for why you should be a believer.

Another thing, please hear me out...

God is real and He cares about us. I'm not guaranteeing anything. I'm not a fortune-teller. But I'd like to make a bet with you...

Sometime tonight, go somewhere private and pray. Seek out God with sincerity. Ask Him to show Himself to you. Be courteous and respectful. Be curious and open-minded. Ask Him something like... "Lord, I am seeking you out. Please show me a sign that you are here. I would like to see reasons to believe in you and commune with you."

After that, give it about two weeks. You'd be surprised by what will happen. Trust me.

If two weeks pass and you notice nothing, I will buy you a whopper.

There was a guy in the past, God bless him, who made a similar bet with me and won.

Pascal's wager is logically sound, but the only "flaw," if you could even call it that, is that it's arguable that you can't come to "believe" just by weighing the odds. God/Jesus isn't a "cosmic insurance policy," so if you say you accept Jesus, believe in God, etc. you sort of have to believe it for it to really mean anything. I do suppose that it provides logical justification, in the terms of risk vs reward, to start seeking God, but it itself likely isn't theologically sufficient to "save" anyone in the Christian sense of the word, but can be very compelling to get people to at least consider the idea and "try" to get themselves to believe in God.

Pascal was one smart man haha.

You said it yourself, that you have to be sincere, and like I said before, part of "asking for forgiveness" is also repentance, which is trying to turn away from sin, even if we're not perfect.

 

[hairygrandpa]

I highly recommend you look up Pascal's Wager if you aren't familiar with it yet. Lots of skeptics try to poke holes on it, but it's a very solid argument for why you should be a believer.

Another thing, please hear me out...

God is real and He cares about us. I'm not guaranteeing anything. I'm not a fortune-teller. But I'd like to make a bet with you...

Sometime tonight, go somewhere private and pray. Seek out God with sincerity. Ask Him to show Himself to you. Be courteous and respectful. Be curious and open-minded. Ask Him something like... "Lord, I am seeking you out. Please show me a sign that you are here. I would like to see reasons to believe in you and commune with you."

After that, give it about two weeks. You'd be surprised by what will happen. Trust me.

If two weeks pass and you notice nothing, I will buy you a whopper.

There was a guy in the past, God bless him, who made a similar bet with me and won.

Please, do not go there. It would be dishonest of my part to pretend to believe when I don't. Would your god favor a liar? Pascals wager is flawed from all angles. What if you are wrong and "Tupi" is god (to some natives here in Paraguay he is) ? The Ayoreo pray to him -and it works too. What could that mean?

 

[Zombocalypse]

Pascal's wager is logically sound, but the only "flaw," if you could even call it that, is that it's arguable that you can't come to "believe" just by weighing the odds. God/Jesus isn't a "cosmic insurance policy," so if you say you accept Jesus, believe in God, etc. you sort of have to believe it for it to really mean anything. I do suppose that it provides logical justification, in the terms of risk vs reward, to start seeking God, but it itself likely isn't theologically sufficient to "save" anyone in the Christian sense of the word, but can be very compelling to get people to at least consider the idea and "try" to get themselves to believe in God.

Pascal was one smart man haha.

You said it yourself, that you have to be sincere, and like I said before, part of "asking for forgiveness" is also repentance, which is trying to turn away from sin, even if we're not perfect.

Honestly man, this whole talk about the conditions for salvation can get complicated. I prefer to simplify things because I don't like thinking excessively. Or at least I try not to.

There's a branch of the Protestant sect that believes that you can lose salvation even after putting faith in Jesus. I don't know the details, but it basically says that even after you put SINCERE faith in Christ you can "fall from Grace" or whatever they call it by certain conditions that I don't really know about.

It's a tough thing to think about.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Please, do not go there. It would be dishonest of my part to pretend to believe when I don't. Would your god favor a liar? Pascals wager is flawed from all angles. What if you are wrong and "Tupi" is god (to some natives here in Paraguay he is) ? The Ayoreo pray to him -and it works too. What could that mean?

I was giving an honest attempt to make you believe in God. Sorry. Forget what I said. Lol.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be pushy.

 

[hairygrandpa]

Pascal's wager is logically sound, but the only "flaw," if you could even call it that, is that it's arguable that you can't come to "believe" just by weighing the odds. God/Jesus isn't a "cosmic insurance policy," so if you say you accept Jesus, believe in God, etc. you sort of have to believe it for it to really mean anything. I do suppose that it provides logical justification, in the terms of risk vs reward, to start seeking God, but it itself likely isn't theologically sufficient to "save" anyone in the Christian sense of the word, but can be very compelling to get people to at least consider the idea and "try" to get themselves to believe in God.

Pascal was one smart man haha.

You said it yourself, that you have to be sincere, and like I said before, part of "asking for forgiveness" is also repentance, which is trying to turn away from sin, even if we're not perfect.

Its not sound at all. Sorry. It would be like appeasing an (invisible) bully, by licking his arse to not get punched (hell). As I said before, even if a god manifests himself before me, I would deny worshiping her. I don't know where you guys live, but the world that I know is full of deadly diseases and dangers, 80% is ocean of saltwater that you can't drink. I'm wondering if god made the world for fish.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Please, do not go there. It would be dishonest of my part to pretend to believe when I don't. Would your god favor a liar? Pascals wager is flawed from all angles. What if you are wrong and "Tupi" is god (to some natives here in Paraguay he is) ? The Ayoreo pray to him -and it works too. What could that mean?

Logically, Pascal's wager would tell you to believe in either the God that dishes out the worst punishment for disbelief, the God that rewards belief the most, or the God that has the best "balance" or "ratio" of the two. I think that the practical application is more to just consider believing in "something" in regards to an afterlife, but like I said, I'd like to think I'd still try to do the right thing even if there is no heaven or hell.

You do bring up a good point though; the wager is only really directly valid when considering only two alternatives; Christianity or atheism.

 

[hairygrandpa]

I was giving an honest attempt to make you believe in God. Sorry. Forget what I said. Lol.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be pushy.

And I made an honest attempt to make you think.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Its not sound at all. Sorry. It would be like appeasing an (invisible) bully, by licking his arse to not get punched (hell). As I said before, even if a god manifests himself before me, I would deny worshiping her. I don't know where you guys live, but the world that I know is full of deadly diseases and dangers, 80% is ocean of saltwater that you can't drink. I'm wondering if god made the world for fish.

You brought up a good point, and I changed my stance in my last post; I'm open to changing my views when presented with new information.

As for why bad things happen, Epictetus said the following:

"Yes, but my nose runs." For what purpose then, slave, have you hands? Is it not that you may wipe your nose? "Is it, then, consistent with reason that there should be running of noses in the world?" Nay, how much better it is to wipe your nose than to find fault."

Is it sort of dodging the question? I suppose so, but sometimes it's best not to focus on unanswerable questions and instead focus on what is in our power, in making the best of the situation we are in.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Its not sound at all. Sorry. It would be like appeasing an (invisible) bully, by licking his arse to not get punched (hell). As I said before, even if a god manifests himself before me, I would deny worshiping her. I don't know where you guys live, but the world that I know is full of deadly diseases and dangers, 80% is ocean of saltwater that you can't drink. I'm wondering if god made the world for fish.

Oh crap. Are we now gonna start the Creationism VS Evolution debate?

lol

 

[hairygrandpa]

Logically, Pascal's wager would tell you to believe in either the God that dishes out the worst punishment for disbelief, the God that rewards belief the most, or the God that has the best "balance" or "ratio" of the two. I think that the practical application is more to just consider believing in "something" in regards to an afterlife, but like I said, I'd like to think I'd still try to do the right thing even if there is no heaven or hell.

You do bring up a good point though; the wager is only really directly valid when considering only two alternatives; Christianity or atheism.

Believe me, we both try to be good. I think its a pity that some people need the menace of a punishment after death to be good, it really blows my mind and makes me suspicious of hardcore Christians. My mind works like that: "Is someone helping the old lady crossing the street out of empathy, or to get a ticket to heaven?"

 

[hairygrandpa]

Oh crap. Are we now gonna start the Creationism VS Evolution debate?

lol

No, please... don't! LOL

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Oh crap. Are we now gonna start the Creationism VS Evolution debate?

lol

The thing is we can have intelligent design and evolution; if God truly is omnipotent and omniscient, he could have created the universe and known that it would develop how it did, and that life would evolve to create humans. Evolution can still be "God's intelligent design," and humans can be "created by God," evolution may just be the "tool" or "method" he used, our way of understanding the universe God created. Like I said, some Christians view early Genesis as allegorical, and some view it as literal. Ultimately, none of us can prove who is right, so I won't spend too much time arguing over it, as I think it's a better use of my time to focus on the teachings of Jesus and how I can apply them in my life than arguing about Adam and Eve. Either way, literal or allegorical, the primary purpose of the story is arguably, or explicitly, to explain that man was created good, but chose to disobey God. Now, only Christians will believe that, but anything beyond that regarding Adam and Eve is arguably not "universally accepted" or "vital" to being a Christian IMO.

 

[hairygrandpa]

Just to make it clear. When I attack beliefs, its exactly THAT: I attack your belief. Its not personal. Its like favoring another football club and showing you the flaws of your club, okay?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Believe me, we both try to be good. I think its a pity that some people need the menace of a punishment after death to be good, it really blows my mind and makes me suspicious of hardcore Christians. My mind works like that: "Is someone helping the old lady crossing the street out of empathy, or to get a ticket to heaven?"

I think Buddhists say that you have to do the right thing for the right reason. Deciding not to steal is good, but if you only do so because you fear getting caught, you're not really being "good," as it implies you would steal if you knew you couldn't get caught.

Brother Laurence said something to the effect of he sometimes wished he could hide his good deeds from God, that he would want to do good deeds and love God without being rewarded for it, that it was reward enough. THIS is the Christianity and love of God that amazes me, and I think it's a lot closer to what Jesus taught then what many people think "Christianity" is today.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Zombocalypse, have you read Brother Laurence's "The Practice of the Presence of God?" It's a great little book, and it's $3 on Amazon Prime.

 

[hairygrandpa]

The thing is we can have intelligent design and evolution; if God truly is omnipotent and omniscient, he could have created the universe and known that it would develop how it did, and that life would evolve to create humans. Evolution can still be "God's intelligent design," and humans can be "created by God," evolution may just be the "tool" or "method" he used, our way of understanding the universe God created. Like I said, some Christians view early Genesis as allegorical, and some view it as literal. Ultimately, none of us can prove who is right, so I won't spend too much time arguing over it, as I think it's a better use of my time to focus on the teachings of Jesus and how I can apply them in my life than arguing about Adam and Eve. Either way, literal or allegorical, the primary purpose of the story is arguably, or explicitly, to explain that man was created good, but chose to disobey God. Now, only Christians will believe that, but anything beyond that regarding Adam and Eve is arguably not "universally accepted" or "vital" to being a Christian IMO.

One last blasphemous rant to prove my point:
My daughter has currently Dengue Fever. If the virus and mosquito who transmit it was made by god, I don't like him. Adam and Eve were driven out of paradise -and now ALL generations afterwards have to suffer, right? Well, if I kill a man and my son gets deported to a dangerous island, is that just, IS IT? For god it is and god is good, right?
How twisted, seriously. I would prefer praying to Mickey Mouse, she is more benign.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

One last blasphemous rant to prove my point:
My daughter has currently Dengue Fever. If the virus and mosquito who transmit it was made by god, I don't like him. Adam and Eve were driven out of paradise -and now ALL generations afterwards have to suffer, right? Well, if I kill a man and my son gets deported to a dangerous island, is that just, IS IT? For god it is and god is good, right?
How twisted, seriously. I would prefer praying to Mickey Mouse, she is more benign.

That's only if you take the account of creation to be literal. If you don't, and it's just allegorical, the application is that we are tempted by worldly things, and that these thing can separate us from God. There doesn't necessarily have to have really even been some paradise that the original people lived in, only that we can try to reach "paradise" by trying to go beyond depending on worldly pleasures for happiness. In reality, we choose to do this ourselves; no one forces us to seek pleasure, to hurt others, or even to disobey God, if you even believe in God. I think an allegorical interpretation of Adam and Eve makes more "sense" even if more conservative Christians would say they disagree with me. I may well be wrong, and I can't even say that I'm 100% a "Christian," so take what I say with a grain or two of salt, coming from someone influenced by Christianity, Judaism, Hindusim, Buddhism, Stoicism, etc.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Oh, and I hope your daughter recovers and feels better.

 

[Zombocalypse]

Believe me, we both try to be good. I think its a pity that some people need the menace of a punishment after death to be good, it really blows my mind and makes me suspicious of hardcore Christians. My mind works like that: "Is someone helping the old lady crossing the street out of empathy, or to get a ticket to heaven?"

The way I see it is that Man is desperately wicked. The Dalai Lama of Buddhism, Tenzin Gyatso believes otherwise. If you read some of his books, specifically The Art of Happiness and Ethics for the New Millennium, he makes it clear that he believes that Man's nature is that of gentleness. This is in stark contrast with Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias who said that "the human heart is desperately wicked." The Bible agrees with Zacharias too. I still recall reading a passage somewhere in Genesis that said that Man is inherently evil.

Taking that into account, if we are all naturally wicked, which I believe is true, then all of us need a Redeemer. Jesus Christ.

In Genesis, Cain killed Abel, and God wiped humanity out of the earth because humanity was sinful. The Christian faith is unique in that you are provided a Redeemer instead of earning your worthiness through "works."

 

[Zombocalypse]

Zombocalypse, have you read Brother Laurence's "The Practice of the Presence of God?" It's a great little book, and it's $3 on Amazon Prime.

Honestly, I don't wanna read it. I got a **** ton of books ranging from the topics of physical fitness to Machiavelli's The Prince. The last thing I need right now is another God-forsaken book.

But please tell me what The Practice of the Presence of God is about. A quick summary.