Is Jansenism a ridiculous concept or is it just me?
955589
Well, i've always found Blaise Pascal's writings interesting. If you want to read his biography (written by his sister), it's something totally mad : you are always wondering whether he was a genius or whether he was totally insane. \nThe wikipedia definition is a bit too simplified, I think. Pascal thinks that human beings are both great because they were created so by God and miserable because of the original sin. He treats a lot the issue of "amour-propre" (self esteem or pride in French). According to him, human beings are too proud to accept that their understanding of the world is limited and that they should depend totally of God. So, you have to fight against pride under all its forms to be able to accept God's help. Then, it's true that for him God is almighty and you can't compell him to help you or not.\nAnyway, jansenists have had a lot of influence on writers, strangely enough. Of course, it influenced Jansenist writers (Racine, La Fontaine, Mme de la Fayette) but not only. In Stendhal's book "The Red and the Black", the Jansenists are all good guys and the Jesuits are generally hypocrit or stupid. Voltaire also was harsher with Jesuits (actually, I heard he didn't write anything about jansenism because his brother was a Jansenist) Chateaubriand called Pascal a frightening genius.\nI think Jansenism is something totally radical and in the same time very intellectual. It couldn't exist any more nowadays because society is very different but Pascal is still a classic writer.
180301
Blindly following something because you are told to and never checking it out drives me up a wall!  More and more I keep running into people like this and it makes me NUTS!  When I can tell you more about what you are believing in after a couple hours of reading than what you have learned about it your whole life there is something wrong!  I call it sheepism and it seems to be of plague proportions now days!  Question things!  If someone doesn't want you too that usually means there is something wrong!
170977
I don't believe in either of them, but that is a very valid point which I myself thought of. If there was a god, maby it would be an evil being, using our faith, (or gulibility,) to it's advantage, and our stupidity is it's entertainment. This seems ludicrace, but makes more vastly sense than a loving supreme being controling this wretched world.
1166845
HAHA I can see what your getting at. This isnt a battle that you can win. Neither can I. I'm christian but a relaxed one. People have their opinions and who am i to tell them different. I dont beleive everything I hear. I beleive things that i know however. And I dont know for sure that a god even exist. I guess thats the whole concept to a religious faith alone. People tend to take the bible TOO literal. Then things begin getting mixed up. I am a scientist as well, some things in the bible just dont make sense. But if you read a book that offered a way for you to live in a sunny nice beach, and youve lived in the projects all of your life...and all you had to do has follow the books teaching...would you take it? I'm sure you see what i'm getting at as well.
34912
I think what this guy is trying to point out is the frustration with so many people being led blindly by dated or 'obsolete' ideologies. I think this question is more akin to people with 'leftist' ideals, that see in the masses a repeating pattern of spoon-fed idiocy. Whenever I think of this question, I think of the millions of people that believe in anything without questioning or analyzing the deepness of the subject. What really comes to mind is RELIGION and PATRIOTISM. So many have been led into believing things that are not even entirely certain, are very subjective and bound to relativity and seemingly created to keep a group of people in power. \nI think this person is frustrated with so many people not questioning beliefs and believing blindly just because 'tradition' demands it.\nWhat frustrates me is that I see so many backwards things and so many people not even questioning them, buying into them and being told how to be and how to act by non-founded dubious sources... this is very saddening, and yes, I think it affects us all. Open-mindedness and an analytical, critical attitude is much needed nowadays, when we're being bombarded by propaganda and lies every day. It's time for society to evolve, go beyond tradition, rid of the old attitudes that have proven wrong, and WAKE UP!
700165
Wow-very very true! I can't believe you picked up on that.I thought I was the only one. \n\nyou are very perceptive. Don't Libs understand that it's Christianity that makes them act that way?\n\neverybody listen to this guy-he knows what he's talking about.
648482
No. It's really a question that shouldn't even exist really, kinda like "What kind of shark repellant works best in Wisconson?" But sadly, millions of people think that it IS a question. Even sadder, millions more think that the answer is "yes," or at least pay lip service to the idea. Then they pass this mental illness on to their children.\n\nBy that reasoning at least, it could be considered a valid question, since apparently so many people seem to think that there IS some divine authority.\n\nI used to think that it was simply fear of death and herd instinct that kept this rather silly con-game going. For years I puzzled over just why otherwise intelligent people could swallow such unmitigated hogwash. Earlier this year, I found part of the answer in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Dr. Julian Jaynes. Hell of a title, I know, but it's written in a very friendly style that any reasonably bright layman can follow.\n\nWhile I disagree with the title, it would be more accurate to call it the "Origin of Sentience," the essence of what Dr. Jaynes had to say is very logical and answers many questions about why humans act as they do when it comes to religion and other bad ideas. What follows is a gross oversimplification of the theory, but you'll get the gist.\n\nNot to put too fine a point on it, but the urge to blindly follow some higher authority, real or imagined, is a byproduct of the process by which humans developed a spoken language and started to live together in larger groups. When given a command, a tribe member would essentially hallucinate a version of his leader giving him the command to keep him busy at complex tasks. Primitive man wasn't so hot at grasping the concept of death, so when a tribal leader would die they would venerate the corpse as the source of the ideas rattling in their head. When the corpse rotted, they replaced it with an effigy of the leader, a permanent copy of him if you will, and worshipped that as they would have the leader when he was alive. As society became more complex, this led to the development of writing to make the "god's" commands even more permanent.\n\nJaynes theorized that at this time the two hemispheres of the brain weren't connected quite like they are these days, and that the "voice of god" was really just a hallucination provided by the brain's right hemisphere. Humans of this early era were not self-aware as we understand the concept, rather they operated mechanically on the hallucinated orders of thier internalized gods. Once civilization reached the point that different cultures were forced to interact, the bicameral way of life eventually broke down.\n\nThe breakdown of the bicameral thinking did not mean the end of gods, rather, it heralded the beginning of what we call religion today. Since men no longer had an interalized god to call upon, they were forced to invent external, invisible gods to take their places.\n\nLike I said, this was a gross oversimplification of Jaynes' work. But as one can see, the urge to follow something else is practically hard wired in to the human brain. Religion was a crutch to aid man in the transition from the bicameral state to full self-awareness and self-authorization. The problem we face these days is that humans have apparently never gotten past that stage en masse. Religion remains in the collective conciousness exactly in the same way that a virus lives in a computer network.\n\nNo, there are no gods, save those man creates. Heaven isn't up there, Mount Olympus is barren. There's no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, or monster under your bed either.\n\nAn earlier poster suggested that you "Read the Bible and the Qu'ran and follow the advice of the prophets and see if you feel it in your heart that God exists and you are doing the right thing." If you do this, I also suggest that you
774729
Socialism is a nice idea, but it depends too heavily on people doing the right thing always. \n\nIf we believe the tenet "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs", to me that means that if I am efficient, frugal and smart in how I do things, anything excess is siphoned off to someone who is not at smart, not as frugal and not as efficient.\n\nIn effect, that person is leeching off of me. i resent that. Why doesn't he work a little harder, or stop having all those kids or whatnot?\n\nAnd who makes these decisions as to what is and what isn't? Again, a nice idea, but rather unworkable
965155
I agree. Jesus Himself used that model....He is a pretty good example to follow! Plus I myself am always most interested in what God has said - for His opinion is far more valid than mine.\n\nAlso it seems logical. For if we were answering questions about the constitutionality of something, it would only make sense that we would refer to the Constitution wouldn't it?
1102040
Absolutely. The system is inherently flawed in many ways. However, my main criticism stems from the deep polarization that this system causes within the country. It's like two major religions duking it out. Everyone is far more interested in pointing out what the "other side's" flaws are than in doing anything productive, and consequentially things rarely get done. There is a pervasive "my side is right no matter what" mentallity, and I for one am sick of it. When you have some free time, read some of my other posts. Occasionaly, my answers only display my bizzare sense of humor, but most of them offer a balanced perspective. Many of them directly relate to this topic. Good question!
994843
No, it’s not the divine word of Dan Brown anymore. Sorry, you’re doomed to hellfire and damnation, as are we all. Although I should point out that when it’s been done in the past it’s been called revisionism and this in turn would produce a whole new following along with belief structure. So hooray! We’re all saved again (sigh). \n\nYa know, I'd also like to say that I’ve also been reading a lot of your past questions and seeing the responses you’ve gotten from most of them and I realize one thing, people honestly feel that god can’t take a dirty joke. If God created us in his own image wouldn’t that mean he also had a sense of humor? Seriously! I mean if I were an atheist wanting to choose a life with god, these people would seriously give me reason to reconsider it. I for one wouldn't want to spend eternity with them, I'd probably be cast into the pit of hell for farting hard.
773082
I could have written this question myself, and I look forward to your answers received.  I too am of the mind that it is what we are taught, and in the worst cases what we are taught to fear the questioning of.\n\nI always thought it would be an interesting (although possibly psycologically cruel) experiment to take a child or two from each of the major religions and raise them with no mention or concept of "god" or religion.  Would the develop a belief of their own?  At least it would be interesting to see what an intelligent person would lean toward if they only learn of the concept of god after growing to an age where they can decide on their own.\n\nI feel that is what I did, but in reverse, and it sounds like what happened to you as well.  As I got older and learned more about our world, I found that I didn't really believe what I was taught all my life.  Frankly, I don't feel the need to believe in a god or religion.\n\nI believe in being a good person as much as I can be, and that is fundamentally based in not causing other creatures intentional harm and living a moral and decent life.  Very similar ideas to what most religions teach.\n\nI also think it is a fine line between a religion and a cult.  Religions just have broad acceptance.  Kind of like if in 3000 years, the Branch Davidians were the most popular religion and David Coresh is referred to as Jesus is today.  Obviously that won't happen, and I really only used that example because I think it is the one most people will know of whom I am speaking.
574913
Yes, I'v read all the classics of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, etc. etc. etc. Some very nice stuff in there. Most of it is lost on the average American or European reader, owing to translation and differences in fundamental worldviews. Quite frankly, you are no scholar. You are a new age looney who has read some yoga manuals and arrogantly thinks he knows as much as Patanjali (who did not, by any stretch of the imagination, live 3000 years B.C. and he's the closest to an "inventor" of yoga as you will find). Your pettiness, antagonism, and self-righteous attitude are utterly deplorable and would be frowned upon by all the great thinkers whose works you bastardize in your frilly new age syncretism. \n\nAnd you clearly have only an extremely superficial and inadequate understanding of Pauline theology.
874929
Yes Mulimah I think you may be on to something. My house is very eclectic, I have antiques, modern pieces, artwork and it all seems to mesh together. That is pretty much how I am with my faith as well. I adapt and take many concepts of various beliefs and find truth as well as lies in all of them. But I see all of them as valid ways for each individual to have a personal relationship with god. That was interesting I never thought of it that way.\nI wish you well
1127376
Good Question, which took me several minutes of valuable on-line time here at the Library to even consider a possible cause.\n\nPerhaps this overdramatized dualistic Labeling is PROOF of the lazy "lowest common denominator" of COMMON humans? This form of Aristotelian "thinking" harks back to the Ancient Greeks, so is not a new phenomenon, at all. Notice all the bloody WARS throughout recorded human history?\n\nAlfred Korzybsky, author of "SCIENCE & SANITY" and other General Semantics books, identifies this rigid, two-valued form of "Logic" as THE key factor in mental break-downs in thought; i.e. ( human misuse of Language leading TO actual INsanity!). He made his own observations  in psychiatric wards personally supervised in his work. \n\nDoctor Korzybsky (sp?) recommends re-training in General Semantics & MULTI-VALUED Logical analysis & description as a key help, if not a  REMEDY for such insanities! (Of course, those  NOT caused primarily by actual, Neurological Disease.)\n\nBinary or Boolean "Logic" is usefull in design of  NON-organic systems such as computer hardware, but dangerous if used to address REAL Life problems, or in Science and the Arts. The  simplest set of "Logical" values would be Trinary; i.e 3-valued!\n"Yes", "No", and "Maybe/Don'tknow4sure"!  \n\nThe simplistic use of "LIBERAL" versus "CONSERVATIVE" stereotyping you HEAR on the (AM) Talk Shows probably indicates frightened but LAZY Thinking of the commoner who  calls-into these programs. LIB/CON dualisms could also be a deliberate & manipulated RHETORICAL ploy of political pseudo-thinkers who wish to push their OWN (often stupid!) AGENDA! \n\nOoops! Sorry. Got carried away there.  Go READ Korzybsky!
542351
I guess this is the Y!A Mid-Life Crisis, huh?  Monotony sets in; we start to wonder Why Am I Here, Is This All There Is, Wouldn't I Look Good In A Ferrari Testarossa Driven by George Clooney -- no? Oh. I guess that last part is just me.\n\nThen again, I've just explained to some newbie why his belief in Count Chocula is not entirely misplaced, so long as he can point to the Empty Cereal Bowl and the Half-Full Cereal Box and hold fast to the icons of his faith.  http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiLB84hpfH1JTw3rOYFz92LAFQx.?qid=1006051917644\n\nAt least I think that's what I said.  I lose track sometimes.  Mid-Life Crisis, y'know.\n\nBut I'm gonna hang in for awhile; you never know when a Ferrari may come 'round the next corner (or who may be in the driver's seat)....
832860
More importantly, and I suspect this is what you're getting at, why would a god who wants worship set himself up to be totally illogical and irrational? I think that if there was a god controlling it all, we'd be somehow predispositioned to believing in him, rather than having to ignore all logic and reason just to get into heaven.