The THOT Process: A documentary about Modern day epidemic of Narcissism

[1487610420]

I understand the human propensity to trust one who leads by example, but whether or not he practises what he preaches should be none of our concern.

Forget about the person. Judge the merits of the idea.

but... that's hard

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

You're not alone, especially considering how the OP posts pics of himself online.

Guilty of it

And I’m working hard to rid myself of it. God bless you for calling out my past.

 

[rav3n]

And I’m working hard to rid myself of it. God bless you for calling out my past.

It wasn't that long ago so it's not really what you would call 'past', as in years past.

Is it possible that since you're trying to rid yourself of narcissism, that you're projecting this 'need' onto others?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It wasn't that long ago so it's not really what you would call 'past', as in years past.

Is it possible that since you're trying to rid yourself of narcissism, that you're projecting this 'need' onto others?

Moving goalposts aside:
What are the Mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation but a death of the old and a resurrection anew into Christ, which is the Holy Tradition of the Church.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Updated:

Lord have mercy on us. 🙏🏼☦️

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

All empires enjoy a big hedonistic rager of a Party near the end. I don’t see what the big deal is. People are just feeling anxiety over the fact that women have more of a say in their roles as sexual gatekeepers. It is what it is and whining about it isn’t going to prevent the inevitable. Just enjoy it while it lasts

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

All empires enjoy a big hedonistic rager of a Party near the end. I don’t see what the big deal is. People are just feeling anxiety over the fact that women have more of a say in their roles as sexual gatekeepers. It is what it is and whining about it isn’t going to prevent the inevitable. Just enjoy it while it lasts

Would this apply to political wizardry and elected officials, too or are these statements compartmentalized?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think [MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head. This thread reeks of someone trying to project a certain image to his peers. Not that there's anything inherently bad about that. Just don't delude yourself into believing you're speaking from a place of moral superiority. Is this thread really about trying to save the thotty whammenz, or is it about yourself?

We're a vain species. We all project a persona, whether it be that of glammed up thot or that of the humble man/woman of god, or something else. We're good at fooling ourselves into believing we're not as vain and self-absorbed as our peers. (Before you point out my own vanity, hey, I take full credit for being a vain little man. Even my confession of vanity is probably an attempt at seeking approval and likes from peers. I'm a covert narcissist and that's a struggle I'm dealing with)

Also, what's with this weird Judeo-Christian-Islamic (other religions aren't getting off the hook here, but the Abrahamic faiths are especially bad about it) obsession with putting all blame for societal ills on women? Poor little Adam, if only that harlot Eve had kept her mouth shut and left well enough alone. When this approach is encoded into a faith's core beliefs, it's no wonder so many of its followers can justify this attitude. Some of these faiths attempt to placate by creating the Mother Mary archetype or similar embodiments of divine femininity. The eternal divine mother, although she's imprisoned to that legacy, which sets a rather narrow path for women who would seek to model their lives and behavior on that role model. And don't let them forget they're all daughters of that harlot Eve, of course.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

"Judeo-Christian" (and now, Islamic) is a recent (Protestant) Western conception of the faith, so there's a presupposition. "Judeo-Christian" was an invention of the Cold War, and to promote the establishment of the political state of "Israel" among (American: victors of WW2) Christians in 1948. So, it's more of a political term than a theological one. It's not Christian in any historical sense.

You're somewhat correct in that we are prideful/egotistical creatures. All sins, including vanity, stems from pride. For example, why do we get angry? Because our pride is hurt. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we're all about confessing our own shortcomings. There's actually this running joke:

"Humility"

So, we have to be neptic in that we don't fall into the pride of being humble and try to "out-humble" everyone else (because the virtue of humility is distinctly Christian). See Nietzsche's Slave/Master morality for more details.

Your understanding of the Fall of Man is also fairly innovative in that I've never heard of it presented in that way before. I can tell you that the Theotokos isn't eternal or divine. I'm not sure if that conception of the Theotokos is just a holdover from your Protestant upbringing/misunderstanding or a new theology of your own invention.

Is it possible that you may not know as much about Christian history/theology as you believe yourself to?

Would you like to answer the question I posed to you in my previous post?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

These three religions grew from similar cultures in the same region of the world. They shared much of the same lore in their holy texts, albeit differing interpretations and versions of that lore. That's why I lumped them together. All three contain strong influences from Zoroastrianism and the ancient Egyptians' religion.

I'm not concerned with conspiracy theories about the Zionist boogeymen. That's where I check out.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

These three religions grew from similar cultures in the same region of the world. They shared much of the same lore in their holy texts, albeit differing interpretations and versions of that lore. That's why I lumped them together. All three contain strong influences from Zoroastrianism and the ancient Egyptians' religion.

I'm not concerned with conspiracy theories about the Zionist boogeymen. That's where I check out.

Technically, there is no longer a Mosaic Judaism in the sense of the Tanakh/Old Testament. Second-temple Judaism died out in AD 70. What you're thinking of as modern "Judaism" is actually Talmudic Judaism (and later, Islam) which developed in the middle ages, and probably does contain elements of Zoroastrianism. Historically, the Church/Christianity is the continuation of Israel. I don't think we're working from the same data sets. Would you like to collaborate and hash this out on a deeper level?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Technically, there is no Judaism in the sense of the Old Testament. Second-temple Judaism died out in AD 70. What you're thinking of as modern "Judaism" is actually Talmudic Judaism (and later, Islam) which developed in the middle ages, and probably does contain elements of Zoroastrianism. Historically, the Church is the continuation of Israel. I don't think we're working from the same data sets. Would you like to collaborate and hash this out on a deeper level?

maybe some time.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I think [MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head. This thread reeks of someone trying to project a certain image to his peers. Not that there's anything inherently bad about that. Just don't delude yourself into believing you're speaking from a place of moral superiority. Is this thread really about trying to save the thotty whammenz, or is it about yourself?

We're a vain species. We all project a persona, whether it be that of glammed up thot or that of the humble man/woman of god, or something else. We're good at fooling ourselves into believing we're not as vain and self-absorbed as our peers. (Before you point out my own vanity, hey, I take full credit for being a vain little man. Even my confession of vanity is probably an attempt at seeking approval and likes from peers. I'm a covert narcissist and that's a struggle I'm dealing with)

Also, what's with this weird Judeo-Christian-Islamic (other religions aren't getting off the hook here, but the Abrahamic faiths are especially bad about it) obsession with putting all blame for societal ills on women? Poor little Adam, if only that harlot Eve had kept her mouth shut and left well enough alone. When this approach is encoded into a faith's core beliefs, it's no wonder so many of its followers can justify this attitude. Some of these faiths attempt to placate by creating the Mother Mary archetype or similar embodiments of divine femininity. The eternal divine mother, although she's imprisoned to that legacy, which sets a rather narrow path for women who would seek to model their lives and behavior on that role model. And don't let them forget they're all daughters of that harlot Eve, of course.

You're pretty biased and uninformed in your assertion.

He didn't put the blame simply on women, he put the blame on men too. Your speech is useless.

His statements indeed reeked of someone preaching from a higher moral ground, but he admitted later that he too has his fault and is working on them. This has its merits on a humane relationship basis, but it is still none of our business what he does with his life in this discussion. The big picture and the impact of the issues he discussed on a daily life basis is what matters whether one is a believer or not. We can let go of the Tu Quoque bullshit now.



Off-topic: You might try to win some points in later occasions by defending women in the right context. Try being fair next time.

Even my confession of vanity is probably an attempt at seeking approval and likes from peers.

At least you know that.

 

[ceecee]

His statements indeed reeked of someone preaching from a higher moral ground, but he admitted later that he too has his fault and is working on them.

Maybe not posting threads like this as they reek of preaching from a moral higher ground, would be a good start at working on them?

 

[Sacrophagus]

Maybe not posting threads like this as they reek of preaching from a moral higher ground, would be a good start at working on them?

He was already criticized for that.

You should probably examine the motivations behind your faith. You have clearly an identity problem.


An excessive attachment to religion is pure and simple fanaticism.
You're not immune to criticism because you identify as a Christian.



The subject is interesting and touches a very sensitive concern that many can relate to in their own way of being and expression.


Now that we have established that we couldn't care less about who you are, we can carry on

Ideally, the problems he's discussing should be tackled from neutral ground. Religion has no monopoly on morality.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

He was already criticized for that.

Ideally, the problems he's discussing should be tackled from neutral ground. Religion has no monopoly on morality.

Part of the purpose of this thread is that the "neutral ground" approach isn't working, obviously. If it was, this thread and/or the video in the OP wouldn't have been made. Approaching these symptoms scientifically (pharmacologically and psychologically) is considered "neutral ground" by those who hold to materialist metaphysics. A few pages back, I considered that we should be approaching these symptoms spiritually. The reason I'm approaching it through my worldview (Christianity) is because I am Christian, and that there is already a wealth of information and historical precedent in dealing with issues discussed in this thread within Christian history. It's actually quite a significant part of the Orthodox doctrine.

Now, by all means if you do have a spiritual worldview with which to approach this topic, please share it. That was my point originally when it seemed like we got off on the wrong foot earlier in this thread. Please forgive me for being so cryptic in my messaging.

 

[ceecee]

He was already criticized for that.

Ideally, the problems he's discussing should be tackled from neutral ground. Religion has no monopoly on morality.

I agree. But the engagement he is getting is minimal. I'm sure he knew this before he posted the thread and already said...

"neutral ground" approach isn't working

So the neutral approach doesn't work. The moral superiority approach doesn't work. The engagement on the topic is minimal and somewhat hostile (mostly due to the moral superiority aspect). So what do you see as the next step?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

So the neutral approach doesn't work. The moral superiority approach doesn't work. The engagement on the topic is minimal and somewhat hostile (mostly due to the moral superiority aspect). So what do you see as the next step?

You said that my morals are superior, not I. And, if there are allegedly superior morals, then it follows that there must be inferior ones, but since the modern philosophy is that morals are subjective, then whence comes this hostility? It could be your morals that are the superior ones, while mine the inferior, and there would be no hostility. Or that all morals are equally valid, and there would be no hostility.

The apparent indignation rather reveals something else: That there are objective morals, and that (philosophical) mirrors are not a favorite piece of furniture in this subsection.

As it is written:

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them"

 

[rav3n]

This has its merits on a humane relationship basis, but it is still none of our business what he does with his life in this discussion.

And yet, the premise of this thread is being all up in other people's business so the individual preaching, should live up to the bar they're demanding of others.

IMO, I don't care if people choose to post pics or not. It's their lives and their choice.

 

[ceecee]

You said that my morals are superior, not me. :

Stop. I was not speaking to you.