Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

[Nick_A]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Apparently the author doesn't understand the purpose of the Christ descending onto the earth. If a person doesn't understand this passage and is revolted by it, they cannot understand Jesus mission.

Matthew 10

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.....................

[LuckyR]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

[Sushan]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Apparently the author doesn't understand the purpose of the Christ descending onto the earth. If a person doesn't understand this passage and is revolted by it, they cannot understand Jesus mission.

Matthew 10

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.....................

I am not thorough with the biblical verses. So correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I can understand, this author has meant that referring back to or thinking of Jesus helps him to calm his mind and find peace. Is it wrong to think like that?

On the other hand, what is really meant by the biblical verse that you have quoted? Does it mean that you have to be a servant of the Jesus even if you have to neglect your own parents? Can you please elaborate on that?

[Sushan]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

I think he wanted to apply it to the readers. May be that is why he used the word 'your'. He himself should feel what he have told, otherwise how can he say such a thing.

At the same time I would like to ask a question if you do not get offended. I sense from your comment that what the author has told does not apply to you (or you do not agree with that when it is applied to you). Can you please explain why is that? And please correct me if I am wrong.

[LuckyR]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

I think he wanted to apply it to the readers. May be that is why he used the word 'your'. He himself should feel what he have told, otherwise how can he say such a thing.

At the same time I would like to ask a question if you do not get offended. I sense from your comment that what the author has told does not apply to you (or you do not agree with that when it is applied to you). Can you please explain why is that? And please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree, he certainly had the hubris to suppose that he understood what makes other people tick.

Some look outward for meaning others look inward. Thus why some are more into religion and others philosophy. I am more philosophical than religious.

[Sushan]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.



What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

I think he wanted to apply it to the readers. May be that is why he used the word 'your'. He himself should feel what he have told, otherwise how can he say such a thing.

At the same time I would like to ask a question if you do not get offended. I sense from your comment that what the author has told does not apply to you (or you do not agree with that when it is applied to you). Can you please explain why is that? And please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree, he certainly had the hubris to suppose that he understood what makes other people tick.

Some look outward for meaning others look inward. Thus why some are more into religion and others philosophy. I am more philosophical than religious.

I see your point.

But all of us face some occasions where we feel the need to have some point of reference to look at or to look up to someone for advice. And there are occasions where we find that our minds are in turmoil and need something to make it calm and quiet. In such occasions, as a person who is more close to philosophy, towards whom or what you look at or look up to?

[mystery]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

Objectively this is an attempt to create a validation loop with Jesus/Church. As long as I follow what is taught to me about Jesus I shall be assured/validated that I am and I am correct and valuable.

Objectively it is more healthy to learn to do this without the Jesus part and do self-validation.

[Sushan]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.

Jesus Is Your Point of Reference and Your Peace of Mind

What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

Objectively this is an attempt to create a validation loop with Jesus/Church. As long as I follow what is taught to me about Jesus I shall be assured/validated that I am and I am correct and valuable.

Objectively it is more healthy to learn to do this without the Jesus part and do self-validation.

I too think so. A reference point has to be something superior and in that sense choosing Jesus as a reference point is a good choice (Personally I do not like to Use church to represent Jesus, because though they are there to represent Him, most of the churches are corrupted and has deviated from their main path). So, one can compare his actions with Jesus being in a similar situation and thinking what He might do.

But I am not sure about this self-validation. How can a person see whether what he is doing correct or wrong if he compare that to he himself (I really don't get this)? Correct and wrong are comparative, and if one is comparing something to his own actions, how can he separate correct from wrong?

[mystery]

The below mentioned quote is found on page 13 of the book for the month of May, Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through by Jeff Meyer.



What do you think about this quote?

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

Objectively this is an attempt to create a validation loop with Jesus/Church. As long as I follow what is taught to me about Jesus I shall be assured/validated that I am and I am correct and valuable.

Objectively it is more healthy to learn to do this without the Jesus part and do self-validation.

I too think so. A reference point has to be something superior and in that sense choosing Jesus as a reference point is a good choice (Personally I do not like to Use church to represent Jesus, because though they are there to represent Him, most of the churches are corrupted and has deviated from their main path). So, one can compare his actions with Jesus being in a similar situation and thinking what He might do.

But I am not sure about this self-validation. How can a person see whether what he is doing correct or wrong if he compare that to he himself (I really don't get this)? Correct and wrong are comparative, and if one is comparing something to his own actions, how can he separate correct from wrong?

doing wrong is still valid. because an outside force tells us we did wrong, does not make us invalid. our self-esteem is tied to validation. it is healthy to have good self-esteem even when doing wrong. but if we rely on an external to provide validation, then we will be forced to follow in the actions they will approve/validate. we have value even when wrong. validation based on right and wrong is manipulation not matter for what reasons.

[Sushan]

Might make sense if he substituted "my" for "your".

Objectively this is an attempt to create a validation loop with Jesus/Church. As long as I follow what is taught to me about Jesus I shall be assured/validated that I am and I am correct and valuable.

Objectively it is more healthy to learn to do this without the Jesus part and do self-validation.

I too think so. A reference point has to be something superior and in that sense choosing Jesus as a reference point is a good choice (Personally I do not like to Use church to represent Jesus, because though they are there to represent Him, most of the churches are corrupted and has deviated from their main path). So, one can compare his actions with Jesus being in a similar situation and thinking what He might do.

But I am not sure about this self-validation. How can a person see whether what he is doing correct or wrong if he compare that to he himself (I really don't get this)? Correct and wrong are comparative, and if one is comparing something to his own actions, how can he separate correct from wrong?

doing wrong is still valid. because an outside force tells us we did wrong, does not make us invalid. our self-esteem is tied to validation. it is healthy to have good self-esteem even when doing wrong. but if we rely on an external to provide validation, then we will be forced to follow in the actions they will approve/validate. we have value even when wrong. validation based on right and wrong is manipulation not matter for what reasons.

I see your point. What you are talking about is the validity but not the morality. But having a value in self even when one is doing something wrong gives me the sense that he is being misled or misdirected regarding a particular thing. A psychopathic serial killer who kills unfaithful women has his own valid reason for his wrong doing. Is your validity something like that?

[mystery]

Objectively this is an attempt to create a validation loop with Jesus/Church. As long as I follow what is taught to me about Jesus I shall be assured/validated that I am and I am correct and valuable.

Objectively it is more healthy to learn to do this without the Jesus part and do self-validation.

I too think so. A reference point has to be something superior and in that sense choosing Jesus as a reference point is a good choice (Personally I do not like to Use church to represent Jesus, because though they are there to represent Him, most of the churches are corrupted and has deviated from their main path). So, one can compare his actions with Jesus being in a similar situation and thinking what He might do.

But I am not sure about this self-validation. How can a person see whether what he is doing correct or wrong if he compare that to he himself (I really don't get this)? Correct and wrong are comparative, and if one is comparing something to his own actions, how can he separate correct from wrong?

doing wrong is still valid. because an outside force tells us we did wrong, does not make us invalid. our self-esteem is tied to validation. it is healthy to have good self-esteem even when doing wrong. but if we rely on an external to provide validation, then we will be forced to follow in the actions they will approve/validate. we have value even when wrong. validation based on right and wrong is manipulation not matter for what reasons.

I see your point. What you are talking about is the validity but not the morality. But having a value in self even when one is doing something wrong gives me the sense that he is being misled or misdirected regarding a particular thing. A psychopathic serial killer who kills unfaithful women has his own valid reason for his wrong doing. Is your validity something like that?

yes, it is. However, I can not agree with the choice of the killer and would take any actions possible to interfere with that. The point is that the moral framework and validation are not the same. Some moral frameworks try to manipulate via validation and shame. This can result in a very moral person that has suicidal internal feelings. When we choose to do something moral in exchange for validation that can lead to low self-esteem because of the dependency on external validation. We have probably all heard of cults that result in mass death because the member's validation has been successfully tied to the choices of the cult usually via validation/withholding validation and or shame, terrible things are then done. There is a deep reason that suicide was called out as a sin.

So, yes we can have a terrible killer that has high self-esteem. They still need to be stopped and dealt with.

Self-esteem does not equal morality although we can try to use it to enforce morality.

[Sushan]

I too think so. A reference point has to be something superior and in that sense choosing Jesus as a reference point is a good choice (Personally I do not like to Use church to represent Jesus, because though they are there to represent Him, most of the churches are corrupted and has deviated from their main path). So, one can compare his actions with Jesus being in a similar situation and thinking what He might do.

But I am not sure about this self-validation. How can a person see whether what he is doing correct or wrong if he compare that to he himself (I really don't get this)? Correct and wrong are comparative, and if one is comparing something to his own actions, how can he separate correct from wrong?

doing wrong is still valid. because an outside force tells us we did wrong, does not make us invalid. our self-esteem is tied to validation. it is healthy to have good self-esteem even when doing wrong. but if we rely on an external to provide validation, then we will be forced to follow in the actions they will approve/validate. we have value even when wrong. validation based on right and wrong is manipulation not matter for what reasons.

I see your point. What you are talking about is the validity but not the morality. But having a value in self even when one is doing something wrong gives me the sense that he is being misled or misdirected regarding a particular thing. A psychopathic serial killer who kills unfaithful women has his own valid reason for his wrong doing. Is your validity something like that?

yes, it is. However, I can not agree with the choice of the killer and would take any actions possible to interfere with that. The point is that the moral framework and validation are not the same. Some moral frameworks try to manipulate via validation and shame. This can result in a very moral person that has suicidal internal feelings. When we choose to do something moral in exchange for validation that can lead to low self-esteem because of the dependency on external validation. We have probably all heard of cults that result in mass death because the member's validation has been successfully tied to the choices of the cult usually via validation/withholding validation and or shame, terrible things are then done. There is a deep reason that suicide was called out as a sin.

So, yes we can have a terrible killer that has high self-esteem. They still need to be stopped and dealt with.

Self-esteem does not equal morality although we can try to use it to enforce morality.

This sort of a self validation seemingly does not have any boundaries. There is nothing to control that. And in that sense it is harmful to the others. Human is a social being. He cannot do whatever he like because all of his actions have an impact to the others. And that is why moral values are valued and rules and regulations are set. So a self-esteem which has no reference or no borders is a dangerous thing.

[mystery]

doing wrong is still valid. because an outside force tells us we did wrong, does not make us invalid. our self-esteem is tied to validation. it is healthy to have good self-esteem even when doing wrong. but if we rely on an external to provide validation, then we will be forced to follow in the actions they will approve/validate. we have value even when wrong. validation based on right and wrong is manipulation not matter for what reasons.

I see your point. What you are talking about is the validity but not the morality. But having a value in self even when one is doing something wrong gives me the sense that he is being misled or misdirected regarding a particular thing. A psychopathic serial killer who kills unfaithful women has his own valid reason for his wrong doing. Is your validity something like that?

yes, it is. However, I can not agree with the choice of the killer and would take any actions possible to interfere with that. The point is that the moral framework and validation are not the same. Some moral frameworks try to manipulate via validation and shame. This can result in a very moral person that has suicidal internal feelings. When we choose to do something moral in exchange for validation that can lead to low self-esteem because of the dependency on external validation. We have probably all heard of cults that result in mass death because the member's validation has been successfully tied to the choices of the cult usually via validation/withholding validation and or shame, terrible things are then done. There is a deep reason that suicide was called out as a sin.

So, yes we can have a terrible killer that has high self-esteem. They still need to be stopped and dealt with.

Self-esteem does not equal morality although we can try to use it to enforce morality.

This sort of a self validation seemingly does not have any boundaries. There is nothing to control that. And in that sense it is harmful to the others. Human is a social being. He cannot do whatever he like because all of his actions have an impact to the others. And that is why moral values are valued and rules and regulations are set. So a self-esteem which has no reference or no borders is a dangerous thing.

Hi Shushan, I can understand your position. I agree that we shall not do whatever we like. At the same time, we shall not defer to another to validate our existence. I believe that self-esteem and morality are different things. Consider if only high morality deffer to others for validation then ultimately the low morality will develop more power and this is an undesirable situation, would you agree?

We also might be touching on individualism vs collectivism. collectivism usually results in lower self-esteem and each individual does not reach full potential as the good of the individual is second to the many.

I do not suggest no borders. We shall live by codes and laws and if those are broken we shall take action.

A group of sheep following a wolf is a dangerous thing.

[Sushan]

I see your point. What you are talking about is the validity but not the morality. But having a value in self even when one is doing something wrong gives me the sense that he is being misled or misdirected regarding a particular thing. A psychopathic serial killer who kills unfaithful women has his own valid reason for his wrong doing. Is your validity something like that?

yes, it is. However, I can not agree with the choice of the killer and would take any actions possible to interfere with that. The point is that the moral framework and validation are not the same. Some moral frameworks try to manipulate via validation and shame. This can result in a very moral person that has suicidal internal feelings. When we choose to do something moral in exchange for validation that can lead to low self-esteem because of the dependency on external validation. We have probably all heard of cults that result in mass death because the member's validation has been successfully tied to the choices of the cult usually via validation/withholding validation and or shame, terrible things are then done. There is a deep reason that suicide was called out as a sin.

So, yes we can have a terrible killer that has high self-esteem. They still need to be stopped and dealt with.

Self-esteem does not equal morality although we can try to use it to enforce morality.

This sort of a self validation seemingly does not have any boundaries. There is nothing to control that. And in that sense it is harmful to the others. Human is a social being. He cannot do whatever he like because all of his actions have an impact to the others. And that is why moral values are valued and rules and regulations are set. So a self-esteem which has no reference or no borders is a dangerous thing.

Hi Shushan, I can understand your position. I agree that we shall not do whatever we like. At the same time, we shall not defer to another to validate our existence. I believe that self-esteem and morality are different things. Consider if only high morality deffer to others for validation then ultimately the low morality will develop more power and this is an undesirable situation, would you agree?

We also might be touching on individualism vs collectivism. collectivism usually results in lower self-esteem and each individual does not reach full potential as the good of the individual is second to the many.

I do not suggest no borders. We shall live by codes and laws and if those are broken we shall take action.

A group of sheep following a wolf is a dangerous thing.

I agree. Adequate self-esteem and self -validation is essential for the revelation of the full potential of a person. Even child psychiatrists advice parents not to compare their child with other children because it will cause the child to loose self-esteem.

Definitely, if subjected to other's validation, it should be both high and low mortalities, because there is no reason for the exclusion of either of them. Maybe the validation can be done by one for one's own self, but his actions should be judged by the society, and should be corrected if it does any harm.