Is "touch starvation" a real thing?

[Lovette]

Does this mean that you believe in a future bodily resurrection for Christians here on the earth? If you do, then can you explain how and when that will take place? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by ascension of the soul to heaven. If you are asking if I believe a Christian's soul goes to heaven when they die, then I do because scripture seems to indicate that. 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23; Revelation 6:9-11. I do not believe that a Christian's soul remains there forever. I believe that a Christian's soul will be given a glorified body at Christ's second coming and that they will reign with him here on the earth. I do not believe in a bodily rapture to heaven.​

Yes, that's what I was asking. You believe that, I don't. All the dead go to the grave, waiting for resurrection at Christ's second advent, 1 Cor. 15:23-25, Rev. 20:1-5. Lord Jesus is our model, He went to the grave for three days waiting for resurrection, so will we go to the grave waiting for ours.

[]What need is there for Christianity to fit in with Stoicism? Are things like mental fortitude and other Stoic virtues unattainable through Christ? What Stoicism lacks is everything because it cannot provide anyone with a new heart and spirit. Therefore, it cannot provide anyone with the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ.[/]

No it can't, otherwise I wouldn't be here. But what it CAN provide is what most modern churches can't.

I agree with you that "therapy culture" and the "prosperity gospel" are harmful and that people are not being prepared for hardship and persecution in many churches. Where we disagree is that Stoicism somehow needs to fit in where these harmful things abound. Why isn't simply preaching the correct message, as contained in biblical Christianity, the solution to these problems?

Because you'd be preaching to yourself, you're not gonna bust the idols in the church. What idols am I talking about? Certain doctrine could be an idol, heaven could be an idol, marriage could be an idol, Christian art, church history, certain pastors, rituals, sacraments, even the bible itself could be an idol, and you wouldn't even realize they're idols. The only solution is to let life teach them a lesson.

Regarding Greek philosophies, scripture contains many warnings against them. You should know that already, but it doesn't seem to matter to you because you cling to one of them yourself.

See above. At least some of those philosophies are helpful, the idols I listed above are just idols that distract you from the true gospel and the transformative power of it. And believe it or not, many Christian theologies were actually the same greek philosophies repackaged in CHristian lingo. I'd rather glean from stoicism to complement what "therapy culture" and 'prosperity gospel“ lack, than clinging to "therapy culture" and 'prosperity gospel“, just because they are sold with a Christian label.

 

[Lovette]

Shoot, this one of them long-playing shows. I'mma have to get more popcorn for this show.

I suspect the only reason for he or she to initiate this long tirade is them being triggered by the label "stoic". He wouldn't have had this reaction had I just preached the virtues such as resilience, self control, mental fortitude, inner peace without using the label "stoic' to encapsulate them all.

 

[Lynx]

I suspect the only reason for he or she to initiate this long tirade is them being triggered by the label "stoic". He wouldn't have had this reaction had I just preached the virtues such as resilience, self control, mental fortitude, inner peace without using the label "stoic' to encapsulate them all.

I have to make the observation that you are not taking it very stoically...

 

[Lovette]

I have to make the observation that you are not taking it very stoically...

Whatever. I've so far concluded that "stoic" is a trigger word for him.

 

[passion84god]

Whatever. I've so far concluded that "stoic" is a trigger word for him.

When I first learned of your beliefs in Stoicism, I told you that I now understood you and that your posts made sense to me. Since then, I have sought to show you how Stoicism is both unnecessary and unbiblical while politely assuring you that I have no desire to judge you whatsoever. If you think that type of behavior shows that I have been "triggered," then you obviously do not know what that word means.​

 

[Lovette]

When I first learned of your beliefs in Stoicism, I told you that I now understood you and that your posts made sense to me. Since then, I have sought to show you how Stoicism is both unnecessary and unbiblical while politely assuring you that I have no desire to judge you whatsoever. If you think that type of behavior shows that I have been "triggered," then you obviously do not know what that word means.​

You don't understand, for there's no other gods in Stoicism, neither Zeno nor Aurelius nor anybody else is a God, I hardly know any of those names. And I don't have "beliefs" in stoicism like some kind of brand loyalty, I just glean some useful virtues from it to help me "pick up the cross and follow Christ." It is absolutely necessary, as long as most churches fail to teach that, as long as most churches are preparing and edifying their congregation for the perils in this world, but for the afterlife in heaven or a "rapture' to heaven.

And most assuredly, you're triggered, because you just can't stop mumbling about the term 'stoicism", without address any thing of substance, any specific mertis or shortcomings of it, while I pointed out its shortcoming in the first post I mentioned it. So indeed you're not judging me, you're misjudging me.

 

[passion84god]

You don't understand, for there's no other gods in Stoicism, neither Zeno nor Aurelius nor anybody else is a God, I hardly know any of those names. And I don't have "beliefs" in stoicism like some kind of brand loyalty, I just glean some useful virtues from it to help me "pick up the cross and follow Christ." It is absolutely necessary, as long as most churches fail to teach that, as long as most churches are preparing and edifying their congregation for the perils in this world, but for the afterlife in heaven or a "rapture' to heaven.

And most assuredly, you're triggered, because you just can't stop mumbling about the term 'stoicism", without address any thing of substance, any specific mertis or shortcomings of it, while I pointed out its shortcoming in the first post I mentioned it. So indeed you're not judging me, you're misjudging me.

Lynx was right.

The end.

 

[Lovette]

Lynx was right.

The end.

I assure you, I understand perfectly well that stoicism only prepares you for death, Christianity prepares you for (eternal) life, but don't you think this life has to end first before the next begins? "Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies," who wrote this? Was it Aurelius - or apostle Paul?

 

[Snackersmom]

How have I spread any trauma?

Well fortunately I don't think you have, because fortunately it sounds like everyone here knows better than to take your comments seriously. If you had a wife and kids they would not have that luxury, so kudos to you for staying single

how was I against any normal human emotion?

If you are not opposed to normal human emotions, then I'm curious which ones you consider normal and therefore acceptable to articulate.

I don't consider whining over "touch starvation" a legitimate emotion

Well I don't consider whining to be legitimate either, but whining is not an emotion. "Touch starvation" is not an emotion either, though it comes about from normal human emotions that you may or may not consider to be legitimate.

And speaking of "emotional abuse, neglect, or dismissal", if you're being ordered around from dawn to dusk everyday, endless tasks and notifications to deal with, and how would you respond when your boss, client, colleagues, etc. is being harsh on you? Or soliciting to you? You'd be grateful to God when you're "neglected" or "dismissed" for a moment of peace with nobody bothering you.

Hey, good job, you expressed some emotions! Not in a very direct way, but hey, baby steps, right? .

I actually have been in that work situation, and yes it is hard. I'm sorry . Telling your coworkers you need an hour to focus without interruptions could be a healthy way to express your emotions, but i get that some workplaces would not find that acceptable.

But to your point that you do not wish to be around people every waking moment of your life... of course you don't. Nobody does. That sounds like torture. I'm curious why you even brought it up

What you call "emotional expression" sounds like temper tantrum to me.

Well I didn't really describe "emotional expression" until just now, so I'm not sure why your brain immediately went to temper tantrum . Tantrums are arguably the most immature, primitive form of expressing one's emotions . Is it because the word "emotional" makes you think of crying? I guess that is understandable, though incorrect. Perhaps we should call it "articulation of emotions" instead, does that make more sense to you?

I get that English is not your native tongue, and all things considered you are doing great. But it's really hard to discuss with you when you keep misunderstanding the meaning of a lot of basic English words. Is there any way you could run your input through Google translate?

 

[Snackersmom]

Well it'd be good for a Christian to embrace some stoic virtues, when today's churches are heavily infested with the so called "therapy culture" and "wellness core", PERCEIVED emotional traumas and victimhood are amplified, the congregation, especially women, are infantilized. Whatever happens to you is beyond your control and your responsibility, how you react to it is within your control and responsibility.

I do largely agree with you here, though I think it's dangerous for a Christian to go outside the Bible for any major life philosophies. Yes, The Bible speaks of denying one's self, taking up our cross, and God's peace during struggles. It also tells us to encourage one another and to weep with those who weep. Church culture has in general gotten too soft, but stoicism is just the other side of the imbalanced scale.

 

[Lovette]

I do largely agree with you here, though I think it's dangerous for a Christian to go outside the Bible for any major life philosophies. Yes, The Bible speaks of denying one's self, taking up our cross, and God's peace during struggles. It also tells us to encourage one another and to weep with those who weep. Church culture has in general gotten too soft, but stoicism is just the other side of the imbalanced scale.

And I think it is ignorant and arrogant to assume that the bible has an answer for everything in life, and forget that the bible is sufficient but not exhaustive, says the bible itself, Jn. 21:25. On God's scale, one side his special revelation through the bible; on the other side though is his GENERAL revelation through everything in life, you'll lose your balance when you only lean on one side.

 

[Lovette]

If you are not opposed to normal human emotions, then I'm curious which ones you consider normal and therefore acceptable to articulate.

The ones that can evoke the seven heavenly virtues and suppress the seven deadly sins.

Well I don't consider whining to be legitimate either, but whining is not an emotion. "Touch starvation" is not an emotion either, though it comes about from normal human emotions that you may or may not consider to be legitimate.

Just go find yourself something useful and productive to do, keep you occupied, then whether it's legitimate or not, it won't bother you anymore.

Hey, good job, you expressed some emotions! Not in a very direct way, but hey, baby steps, right? .

I actually have been in that work situation, and yes it is hard. I'm sorry . Telling your coworkers you need an hour to focus without interruptions could be a healthy way to express your emotions, but i get that some workplaces would not find that acceptable.

But to your point that you do not wish to be around people every waking moment of your life... of course you don't. Nobody does. That sounds like torture. I'm curious why you even brought it up

I'm telling you that's just a part of adult life, responsibility means ability to respond, and I should rather feel lucky that I still have a stable job in this economy.

Well I didn't really describe "emotional expression" until just now, so I'm not sure why your brain immediately went to temper tantrum . Tantrums are arguably the most immature, primitive form of expressing one's emotions . Is it because the word "emotional" makes you think of crying? I guess that is understandable, though incorrect. Perhaps we should call it "articulation of emotions" instead, does that make more sense to you?

I get that English is not your native tongue, and all things considered you are doing great. But it's really hard to discuss with you when you keep misunderstanding the meaning of a lot of basic English words. Is there any way you could run your input through Google translate?

Actually I do understand, and my brain didn't immediately go to temper tantrum, I used that term as a strawman, an exeggerated version of emotional example and threw it at you. I was simply being sarcastic at you.

 

[Snackersmom]

And I think it is ignorant and arrogant to assume that the bible has an answer for everything in life, and forget that the bible is sufficient but not exhaustive, says the bible itself, Jn. 21:25. On God's scale, one side his special revelation through the bible; on the other side though is his GENERAL revelation through everything in life, you'll lose your balance when you only lean on one side.

I didn't say the Bible has an answer for everything, I do not hold that belief. I merely said that I wouldn't look elsewhere for major life philosophies. Not sure if you are genuinely confused or just resorting to strawmen again .

If you were up for mature debate I would ask what stoicism has taught you that the Bible couldn't, but I don't see that as an option at this point Perhaps it is the language barrier.

At any rate, I apologize for making you emotional to the point of verbally throwing things. I should probably work on that.

 

[Lovette]

I didn't say the Bible has an answer for everything, I do not hold that belief. I merely said that I wouldn't look elsewhere for major life philosophies. Not sure if you are genuinely confused or just resorting to strawmen again .

If you were up for mature debate I would ask what stoicism has taught you that the Bible couldn't, but I don't see that as an option at this point Perhaps it is the language barrier.

At any rate, I apologize for making you emotional to the point of verbally throwing things. I should probably work on that.

You' yourself are making a strawman out of stoicism for nothing but being a "greek philosophy", as you assume "language barrier" as a diversion tactic. As long as you hold that attitude, it's not gonna be a mature debate.

It seems rather hypocritical to me, that any church doctrine about "purity of the soul", "afterlife in heave", "mortal life as a suffering exile", "I'm just passing by" or "body as a prison" is a false teaching originated from Plato, he proposed the simulation philosophy, that the reality we're living in is merely a shadow of the "real" reality, like a movie or Minecraft, it had become ubiquitous not only in theology, but every intellectual circle, and yet it's unbiblical.

If you were really up for a mature debate, I hope we could discuss those virtues I repeatedly mentioned - resilience, inner peace, self control, mental fortitude, submission to God's sovereignty, instead of relentlessly attacking stoicism as a thin target. I can't think of any reasonable motive other than you being triggered by that term. It might be hard for you to imagine, but for some really unfortunate people, who've been through not just some emotional or relational trauma, but major catastrophes such as war, natural disaster, bankrupcy, job loss, career ending injury, disability, betrayal, wrongful charge and penalty, all perfectly fit the Platonic philosophy I've just described above, the only thing that stands between enduring their misfortune and suicide - or other self-destructive behavior - is those virtues which you despise as "stoic".

 

[Lynx]

And I think it is ignorant and arrogant to assume that the bible has an answer for everything in life, and forget that the bible is sufficient but not exhaustive, says the bible itself, Jn. 21:25. On God's scale, one side his special revelation through the bible; on the other side though is his GENERAL revelation through everything in life, you'll lose your balance when you only lean on one side.

Ignorant and arrogant? Snackersmom?

...

You have DEFINITELY not been paying attention! Neither of those fits her at all.

 

[Lovette]

Ignorant and arrogant? Snackersmom?

...

You have DEFINITELY not been paying attention! Neither of those fits her at all.

No, that only meant to target the idolators of the bible, especially the "cessationists" who practically deny the general revelation of God and only worship the bible as the only revelation of God. As long as that's not her profile, we're good.

 

[Lovette]

Ignorant and arrogant? Snackersmom?

...

You have DEFINITELY not been paying attention! Neither of those fits her at all.

And btw, what the bible could teach you is one thing, what the church could teach you is another. They're probably synonymous to you, but not at all. The key difference is Acts 8:30-31 - "Do you understand what you're reading?" "How can I, unless someone guides me?" On one end of the spectrum is someone ignorant and arrogant, as I described, who rejects all ecclasiastical authorities, worships the bible, and supposes they could figure out all the secrets in God's word by themselves; on the other end is someone who blindly follows their church leaders and the doctrines fed into their minds without any critical thinking, if you dare challenging their church leaders or doctrines, they take it as a personal offense. A healthy attitude is somewhere in the middle, and unfortunately, it takes some inquisitive questions and presumptions to locate one's position on this spectrum.

 

[Lynx]

And btw, what the bible could teach you is one thing, what the church could teach you is another. They're probably synonymous to you, but not at all. The key difference is Acts 8:30-31 - "Do you understand what you're reading?" "How can I, unless someone guides me?" On one end of the spectrum is someone ignorant and arrogant, as I described, who rejects all ecclasiastical authorities, worships the bible, and supposes they could figure out all the secrets in God's word by themselves; on the other end is someone who blindly follows their church leaders and the doctrines fed into their minds without any critical thinking, if you dare challenging their church leaders or doctrines, they take it as a personal offense. A healthy attitude is somewhere in the middle, and unfortunately, it takes some inquisitive questions and presumptions to locate one's position on this spectrum.

I bet I know which end you're on.

What? The middle? Nooooo you're nowhere NEAR the middle. The way you reject out-of-hand everything anyone says if they disagree with you, you can't be in the middle. People in the middle discuss. People on the ends of your spectrum just argue. A lot like you just argue.

 

[Lovette]

I bet I know which end you're on.

What? The middle? Nooooo you're nowhere NEAR the middle. The way you reject out-of-hand everything anyone says if they disagree with you, you can't be in the middle. People in the middle discuss. People on the ends of your spectrum just argue. A lot like you just argue.

At least I argue on the substance, unlike some people who get triggered by certain terms, put a label on it as a guilty charge of heresy, accuse me of the charge, prosecute me on that, and have totally diverted the initial topic of the thread.

 

[Lynx]

At least I argue on the substance, unlike some people who get triggered by certain terms, put a label on it as a guilty charge of heresy, accuse me of the charge, prosecute me on that, and have totally diverted the initial topic of the thread.

Hehehe...

For something that started with "some people," that got awfully specific at the end.