For face to face counselling I have my local parish priest, and for really deep Theological and Philosophical matters, I have my Franciscan friend in Sydney Australia.
Unfortunately, we have to communicate via email because I live on the other side of the world, but he’s a truly outanding Theologian (and Scientist), and I’m fortunate to able to exchange emails with him.
And, of course, there’s God (and the communion of saints.)
I think I asked for prayers for my dad in my opening post here.
Have you prayed for him?
Have you prayed for me?
I have nothing against the prayer rope, the Jesus prayer, the rosary, or a mystical experience of Christianity–but I’m not into yoga, the satori experience of Zen, or sweat lodges.
Didn’t some people out in California (or Arizona) die pursuing mystical experiences in sweat lodges not too long ago?
And don’t such native American practices often involve using peyote (or other mind altering drugs) to induce mystical experiences?
Do you reccomend that?
If yoga, or zen, or these native American practices have any thraputic value, couldn’t the same effects be acheived (much more scientifically, and safely) using biofeedback?
I will grant you one thing though.
I did know a medical doctor back in the eighties (in New Jersey) who’s daughter was a chiropractor, and whenever I threw my back out he could adjust it by using a trick he said he learned from her.
It probably took less than a minute, and worked every time.
It was really amazing.
BTW: You never answered a question I asked you–do you deny the existence of anything that has intrinsic value?
Someone here said “Value is always a personal judgment”–do you share that opinion?
Do you consider all things relative?
Is there (in your opinion) no intrinsic, objective value to existence in a state of beatitude?
How do you feel about vivisection?
Maybe that’s a bad example, because those in favor of it hope it will serve some higher purpose.
But is it true to say that it would be objectively wrong to do it for no purpose but to inflict pain on the animal?
Why?
And if you say it’s wrong, is it wrong simply because that’s your personal judgment, or mine, or God’s–or is it wrong because some things have real, objective, intrinsic value?
Is causing another being to suffer for no purpose not wrong in itself, because existence in a state of suffering (for no purpose) is undesirable?
Or is comparing existence in pain to non-existence meaningless?
Would it be true to tell the owners of the famous race horse who was euthanized after that race with Secretariat
Did these poor misguided humans do what they did only for themselves, when they thought they were doing it for the horse?
That’s clearly what Jason is saying here, and I disagree with him.
Do you believe there would have been nothing wrong with the owners letting Ruffian go on suffering, as long as it didn’t offend human sensibilities (or the angels, or God)?
Is it meaningless to say that a vivisection that served no higher purpose would still be wrong even if it didn’t offend the sensibilities of anyone watching (human or divine)?
Would it be wrong to bring an animal into existence to perform such a vivisection, if you knew in advance that it would serve no higher purpose?
Would it be wrong to bring Ruffian into existence in a permanent state of suffering?
If you say “yes,” and if you think the animal is in no meaningful sense any worse off existing in needless pain than it would be not existing, please explain why it would be wrong to bring it into that kind of existence.
These are philosophical questions, and this part of the forum is supposed to be a place where we can discuss philosophical questions.
Fine.
But it really shouldn’t be about your education and job experience, my mental health (or the lack of it–or my education and job experience either for that matter), or Jason’s mental health, qualification (or lack of qualification) to make psychological diagnosis, or personal failings.
It should be about the philosophical issues raised by the questions asked–and I’d like to know where you stand on some of them.
Do you agree with Richard Hooker, who said
Or do you agree with the poster here, who said
I agree with Hooker, and if we continue this dialogue tomorrow, maybe you can tell me which statement you agree with?
Till then (as my Franciscan friend and priest would say), Pax Et Bonum.