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.
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.
Have you ever gone to a mass on random Thursday? There is often no sermon during daily, non-Sunday mass. Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".
Again, super confused. Like yeah the Eucharist is clearly the most important part for many Catholics, but the notion that the readings don't contain moral teachings is very strange to me.
Am I missing something in your point?
Yes, they tend to be combined on Sundays, because that is practical and many believers want both on Sunday anyway. But that does not make them the same thing.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
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 meant Catholic as in Catholic Church - the huge hierarchical organization lead by Pope. The mass is the ritual part, the bread, wine and the ceremony. Then there is the preaching which is separate thing. You can have mass only, the preaching only or the combination of the two. Catholicism is really big on rituals and tradition, they have meaning by themselves.
The Midnight Mass for example does not have much preaching. That is not the point of going there. The point is to celebrate.
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.
> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:
> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).
Much as I dislike disagreeing with C.S. Lewis, my personal nomenclature is to reserve the term Christian for those who live the values promoted by the Gospels. This is clearly non standard though, so I see the potential for confusion.
CEOs are psychopaths.
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'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.
And there is flourishing and attachment - https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-7
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.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/science-and-scientism/
* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-necessity-of-freedom/
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.
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?
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.
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.
>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."
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.
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 GP did say "and I was very successful", perhaps your gigantic libido has destroyed your reading comprehension.
They are in constant opposition.
This is not clear to me at all.
Or do you still have 5 simultaneous dating app subscriptions you haven't canceled?