I really -really- like the underlying principles of Buddhism and Stoicism, being that it hinges mostly on divorcing yourself of feelings-based actions and the enduring of pain rather than escaping it.
Christianity isn't far from this, so what schools of Christianity most reflect these beliefs and ideas?
I'll elaborate on what I seek more, if that is needed.
Other urls found in this thread:
gornahoor.net
gnosis.org
marxists.org
age-of-the-sage.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Catholicism
Whether you indulge your flesh or restrict your flesh, you're just living by the flesh.
God is not worshiped in the flesh but in the spirit.
flesh and spirit are one and the same
Esoteric Christianity/mystical Christianity.
I'm awful certain the idea behind those two is to live APART from the flesh, not to say, starve yourself because of wanting to induce pain, but to live apart from the want.
Otherwise, is priestly celibacy living by the flesh?
How so?
"the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"
This. Writings of various church fathers (catholic and eastern orthodox). Gnosticism too
>Whether you indulge your flesh or restrict your flesh, you're just living by the flesh.
False. Christianity teaches abstention from the desires of the Flesh. Hence Christ telling Peter on the Garden of Gethsemane "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; The spirit is indeed willing; but the flesh is weak."
Writings of Saints and mystics as well. As well as metaphysics that intersect.
>2378724
anyone have a list of the good saints/mystics/fathers one should read? would be cool if someone made a definitive list
go away dogmatist
>Writings of various church fathers (catholic and eastern orthodox). Gnosticism too
Two completely opposed things?
Two good ones are from a Catholic angle are
The Prophecies and Revelations of
Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden
and
The true story of Fatima.
Both are free online.
If you're interest in more metaphysical aspects instead of devotion this website is very good, just use the search bar or browse. gornahoor.net
It's not being a dogmatist. Abstation from the flesh IS important from a Christian perspective. It helps strenthen the spirit.
Yeah. No.
Whether you're indulging your flesh, or restricting it, you're living in the flesh. Not sure what's unclear about that statement.
Priestly celibacy is a means to keep the money in the church. Peter was married with children.
>Two completely opposed things?
yes but they both have useful elements.
Yes, Peter's flesh was weak. So is yours. So is mine.
All Marian apparitions are demonic.
Fasting strengthens the spirit, not abstention in general. Fasting and praying and meditating on the Word of God.
You can obviously do whatever you want to in the flesh for whatever reasons you want to.
If you think you're doing God any favors by doing so, you should reconsider your motivations.
After all, the pharisees called Jesus a glutton and a drunkard.
They aren't completely opposed. On the contrary they are rather similar.
It is useful but there is also a fine line. If one is motivated by guilt or shame, then that can do more psychological damage. Its also an effect of spiritual growth just as much as its a cause.
The thing is, so long as you have zeal for Christ (something you can loose sadly) you'll find you don't WANT to partake in the desires of the flesh.
I'm not saying you should murder yourself when you jerk off. This being said, if you'd be perfect try to restrain the flesh's desires.
29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.
Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."
gnosis.org
Since it is the linen which is to express its value, the initiative proceeds from it. It enters into a relation with the coat, i.e. with some other commodity different from itself. This relation is a relation of equalisation (Gleichsetzung).
marxists.org
The Third Patriarch of Zen
Hsin Hsin Ming by Seng-T'san
The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood,
the mind�s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
The Way is perfect like vast space
where nothing is lacking and nothing in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject
that we do not see the true nature of things.
Live neither in the entanglements of outer things,
nor in inner feelings of emptiness.
Be serene in the oneness of things and such
erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
When you try to stop activity by passivity
your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remain in one extreme or the other
you will never know Oneness.
"God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
Tell me more, if you would
nice, thanks a lot dude
It's more following the axiom "pray with your door shut, and your father who see's you in secret will award you in secret"
Instead of focusing on Church service, exoteric rituals and material charity (not that these things are bad) focus on things like like prayer, the rosary, following the teachings of Christ, reading scripture and related Christian text, ect.
Who cares. Just be compassionate towards your fellow man. Who cares what you call it
>Buddhist
>Stoicism
Where did this meme come from? I've been seeing it passed around more and more with relatively little evidence as such from Tripitaka.
^This.
The Coptic Gospels appear to be completely in line with "mainstream" Christian theory.
*
To actually answer your question, OP, my guess would be Beguine antinomianism, ala Mirror of Simple Souls.
>en.wikipedia.org
Writings of the Desert Fathers is great.
>Where did this meme come from?
Because of the emphases on non-attachment. Also both are treated as philophies instead of religions in the West (whether that's for better or worse).
Stoicism doesn't have the 4 noble truths, a book of the dead or all the substance Buddhism has but from a practical western standpoint the results of following the two would be similar.
I've hears Veeky Forums stoics tell me that one should avoid seeking joy or bliss because reveling in emotion is degenerate.
Meanwhile, Nirvana can be translated as "complete bliss" alongside "blown out".
>I've hears Veeky Forums stoics tell me that one should avoid seeking joy or bliss because reveling in emotion is degenerate.
If they preach that they most certainly don't practice it. Why do people feel any philosophies goal is to make you miserable? Stoicisms point is to make one happier by accepting reality.
Frankly I see more parity between Cynics and Buddhism than Stoicism and Buddhism, but that's just me.
This
>a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.
Doesn't seem to add up for me