/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20317559]

Is there any consideration for self-esteem in Christianity?
Everything I've read thus far pertains to the suppression of the ego.
But what are you supposed to do with an excess of shame and a feeling of worthlessness? Is it not possible to feel wrong when you are actually right, being distracted by self-hatred?

[Anonymous No.20318327]

>>20317559

Pray Psalm 50.

You're correct in suspecting self-absorbed, self-centred pride is unworkable, and you want to find a replacement in Christianity, but Christianity not about self-absorbed, self-centred hatred. The whole point isn't to be centred around yourself - it's to be centered around God.

You're supposed to unceasingly pray to God, and love God. When you're with God, and God is within you, there's peace.

One reason that the Holy Trinity is eternally loving, is that the Son & Father share in selfless love for the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit & Son share in selfless love for the Father, and the Father and Spirit share in selfless love for the Son. That's why God is not an absolutely simple monad - an absolutely simple monad would have no choice but to love itself eternally, revelling in eternal egotism.

[Anonymous No.20318392]

>>20318327
Not OP but thanks for that explanation of the Holy Trinity. I've been reading through the bible for a few months and have struggled to grasp the concept of One God made of three parts, but that makes a lot of sense

[Anonymous No.20318459]

>>20317559
>Is there any consideration for self-esteem in Christianity?

Yes. Try Groeschel, Stumbling Blocks, Stepping Stones

Or Bradshaw, Healing the Shame that Binds You, which a lot of people have benefited from.

An encounter with Christ will result in psychological and emotional healing -- He is the great physician.

[Anonymous No.20318498]

>>20318327
>One reason that the Holy Trinity is eternally loving, is that the Son & Father share in selfless love for the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit & Son share in selfless love for the Father, and the Father and Spirit share in selfless love for the Son. That's why God is not an absolutely simple monad - an absolutely simple monad would have no choice but to love itself eternally, revelling in eternal egotism.
That's nice and all but the trinity is still polytheism.

[Anonymous No.20318637]

>>20318498

No.

[Anonymous No.20319171]

>>20317559
Read Guilt by Caryll Houselander

[Anonymous No.20319173]

>>20318637
How isn't worshipping three persons not polytheism?

[Anonymous No.20319184]

>>20319173
See, you avoid that by saying they're all the same person

[Anonymous No.20319239]

>>20319184
So the Father = the Son = the Ghost? So why give them separate names for the same thing?

[Anonymous No.20319243]

>>20319239

[Anonymous No.20319245]

>>20319243
You're contradicting yourself. Your inage shows 3 different persons. Worshipping 3 persons is polytheism.

[Anonymous No.20319246]

>>20317559
>ego
>self-esteem
lol. you're just a narcissist

[Anonymous No.20319261]

>>20319245
They're 3 different expressions of the same "person". Like Ziggy Stardust, the Thin White Duke, and Aladdin Sane.

[Anonymous No.20319262]

>>20319245
If this is true, three different waves on the same ocean are actually three different oceans.

[Anonymous No.20319290]

>>20319173

Original person you responded to here, I don't believe what the other person believes.

They share the same essence, and the same activity, are totally inseperable according to their essence and activity, and are co-eternal before the creation of the world.

If they were three Gods, then they would have three separate essences, and three separate divine activities.

[Anonymous No.20319294]

>>20319245
I wasn't the person you're replying to. God is 3 distinct persons, not 3 gods. They're relationally separate from each other but share the same nature as 1 God. Analogically, you could think of a family (1 nature uniting multiple persons) consisting of father, mother, son (3 distinct persons). It's imperfectly analogical, but it gives an idea of what I think is sui generis.

[Anonymous No.20319311]

>>20319261
>>20319262
Heresy detected: Modalism. According to Catholics, each of the 3 persons is wholly God. Yet where does that leave room for the other two? Imagine if Christians believed that each wave was in fact the whole ocean, this is how little sense the trinity makes.
>>20319290
>They share the same essence, and the same activity,
Does that mean that the Father and the Ghost also have the Son's human essence, they must have if they share the same essence. This means that God is both human and divine, this is in fact two essences, not one, and we arrive again at polytheism.

[Anonymous No.20319319]

>>20319294
>God is 3 distinct persons, not 3 gods. They're relationally separate from each other but share the same nature as 1 God
Did Jesus have a divine or human nature?
>Analogically, you could think of a family (1 nature uniting multiple persons) consisting of father, mother, son (3 distinct persons).
Each family member is just one small part of a family. Is each trinity member one third of God?

[Anonymous No.20319328]

>>20319311

>Does that mean that the Father and the Ghost also have the Son's human essence, they must have if they share the same essence.

This would only be true if there was no such distinction between essence and person, like the Roman Catholics believe. The Orthodox theology does assert that.

Because they are distinct persons, and this ontological category is distinct from essence, the Son can become incarnate and acquire a human nature, while the Holy Spirit and Father do not.

The Father and Spirit are both divine persons - they are God according to their Essence and Energy. Neither are human.

Christ is a divine person - he is God according to this divine essence and energy like the Father and Spirit, and human according to his human nature and energy.

>This means that God is both human and divine, this is in fact two essences, not one, and we arrive again at polytheism.

That would only be true if either the human essence was inherently another divine essence, or that the created human essence was upgraded into an uncreated human essence in the incarnation. Neither are the case.

[Anonymous No.20319330]

>>20319319
Jesus is fully divine and fully human. Like I said, it's an imperfect analogy. You can't point to 1 thing in the world and match that to how Trinity works. That's what sui generis means.

[Anonymous No.20319333]

>>20319328

*The Orthodox theology does assert that they are different ontological categories.

[Anonymous No.20319353]

>>20319328
Your post shows that you have inferred two types of God.
>The Father and Spirit are both divine persons - they are God according to their Essence and Energy. Neither are human.
This is the first type of God, a God without human nature.
Christ is a divine person - he is God according to this divine essence and energy like the Father and Spirit, and human according to his human nature and energy.
This is the second type of God, a god WITH human nature. How can God be one but there are two types of him?

[Anonymous No.20319357]

>>20319330
>fully divine and fully human
He has two essences?

[Anonymous No.20319376]

>>20319357
If I understand correctly, he has two "natures" under "hypostatic union", don't ask me what that means. If you slightly change some words of the official Church pronouncements you end up with persecuted heresies like Nestorianism

[Anonymous No.20319387]

>>20319357

Yes, that's dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.20319393]

>>20319376
>>20319387
And is Jesus wholly God?

[Anonymous No.20319398]

>>20319353

I've seen this exact line of argumentation from Muslims every single time. Because Muslims are unable to actually answer the position on its own terms, they put words into the opposition's mouth, and to say that we have inferred two types of God.

When have I ever said that? I have said that the three persons are one God according to their shared divine nature, and divine energy.

Have I implied there two types of this divine nature? No.

Have I implied there are two types of this divine energy? No.

Have I explicitly stated that there are three persons with the divine nature, and the according energy? Yes.

Have I stated that all of them have the same divine nature and energy? Yes.

Have I stated that the Son's divine essence and energy changes when he acquires the human nature, making his divinity different to the Father or the Holy Spirit's? No.

There are no implied "two types of divinity" according to the ontological categories of the union the three persons share - essence and energy.

[Anonymous No.20319399]

Does anyone know why the Chalcedonian Definition says Christ is "co-essential" with the Father and with us but then says he has two "natures"? What's the difference between "essence" and "nature"?

[Anonymous No.20319400]

>>20319376
Jesus has a human nature, but he isn't a human person. Nature isn't the same as person. Some secular people argue that prenatal humans aren't human persons in order to justify abortion which was actually something that some medieval Catholics thought.

[Anonymous No.20319401]

>>20319393

Yes, Jesus fully has two natures, one uncreated and divine, one created and human, his divinity not diminishing his humanity, and his humanity not diminishing his divinity.

[Anonymous No.20319406]

>>20319399

There's no difference between "essence" and "nature" in this context.

Christ is co-essential with the Father according to his divine nature.

Christ is co-essential with us according to the human nature he received from the Virgin Mary.

In order to be co-essential with both us and the Father, he must have both the Divine and Human natures. That is how Christ has two natures.

This is also how we can say that Christ died - he died according to his human nature on the cross, when his soul separated from his body. The divine nature is incapable of death, since death is only something created natures can undergo.

[Anonymous No.20319413]

>>20319401
So we arrived at thw first type of God, the Jesus-God. Now do the Father and Spirit have human essences? Assuming you answer no, are the Father and Spirit also wholly God? If you answered yes, then we arrive at the second type of God, the Father/Spirit-God. In conclusion we have two types of God with irreconcilable essences, instead of just one God. In short, the trinity is poltheistic.

[Anonymous No.20319414]

>>20319413

See >>20319398

Instead of running away from it like a lying coward.

[Anonymous No.20319419]

>>20319398
>Have I implied there two types of this divine nature? No.
You have, by admitting that Jesus has both a human and divine essence, while the Father and Spirit have just the divine.
>Have I stated that the Son's divine essence and energy changes when he acquires the human nature, making his divinity different to the Father or the Holy Spirit's? No.
I never said that the Son's divine energy changes, you yourself admitted that Jesus also has a human essence. Granting that Jesus and the Father/Spirit's divine essences are identical, Jesus still has an additional essence that the others lack. And if all three members of the trinity are wholly God, this necessarily implies different types of God. Please explain to me where I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.20319422]

>>20319414
The Father is wholly God, but without a human essence.
The Son is wholly God, but with a human essence.
These two statements cannot be both correct.

[Anonymous No.20319430]

>>20319173
The road to athens from thebes is not the same as the road from thebes to athens, even though they're the same road. The persons are relations.

[Anonymous No.20319431]

>>20318459
How do I encounter Him?
>>20319430
In other words, each person is a separate person only from a certain point of view. It's higher than our tongues can tell or our minds can understand.

[Anonymous No.20319453]

Jesus' human nature was created as he was conceived in Mary's womb. Jesus existed before he became human.

[Anonymous No.20319473]

>>20319419

>And if all three members of the trinity are wholly God, this necessarily implies different types of God. Please explain to me where I'm wrong.

>You have, by admitting that Jesus has both a human and divine essence, while the Father and Spirit have just the divine.

This only implies, that there are two types of divine person - one with a human nature, Christ, and ones without a human nature. This is fine, since you could go as far to say there are three types of divine persons with only one member in each type - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but this is starting to stretch what it means for there to be "different types".

This does not change the nature of their shared divinity, or create a second divinity out of nowhere.

The same eternal Son that has always had a divine nature since before the creation of the world, acquired a human nature, without changing in his divine nature.

[Anonymous No.20319478]

>>20319422

I knew you were going for this angle when you said "Wholly" instead of "Fully", because the usage of "whole" is meant in the sense of "This entire bowl is wholly filled with rice", meaning that it is only rice that fills that bowl.

In that sense, you're right. Those two statements cannot both be correct, if both meant in those senses. That is why I never said those two statements.

This is why I said "Fully God and Fully Man", to avoid that definition entirely.

[Anonymous No.20319483]

>>20319431

>In other words, each person is a separate person only from a certain point of view.

If you're a Christian, stop committing to modalism. The three persons are separate persons as they have revealed themselves, and as eternal ontological realities from even the point of view of God, as mentioned here >>20318327

[Anonymous No.20319492]

>>20317559
Newsflash the ego doesn’t exist Freud was a Jew all that exists is soul

[Anonymous No.20319929]

>>20319431
>How do I encounter Him?

Pray, earnestly seek Him, trustfully ask for the grace of coming to know Him. Know that the asking of the question may well be a prevenient grace -- that is, the Spirit in you, moving you, in order to bring you to an encounter. Trust that God is good, know that He often works slowly (think of the growth of a tree, or a child), but other times quickly or instantly.

Other books you may find helpful:

Raphael Simon, Hammer and Fire: Way to Contemplative Happiness (Simon was a psychiatrist, an atheist Jew who converted to Catholicism, became a monk, then a priest. This is a very good book for people who are depressed or who feel broken. I'm not sure if it's currently in print, but there are used copies on Amazon. It's worth seeking out. I can say that it was very helpful at a difficult point in my life.)

Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation (Reading this illuminating and rather profound book prayerfully could lead one to an encounter with Christ, I believe.)

[Anonymous No.20319939]

>>20317559
>But what are you supposed to do with an excess of shame and a feeling of worthlessness?
Shame should be overcome with forgiveness of others. Worthlessness with realizing you have a soul.
>Is it not possible to feel wrong when you are actually right, being distracted by self-hatred?
What does this mean? Hating yourself has no place in Christianity but overcoming selfishness does.

[Anonymous No.20319944]

>>20317559
Shouldnt you glorify God while you are on Earth?

[Anonymous No.20319950]

>>20317559
>Is there any consideration for self-esteem in Christianity?
A lot of it. It gaslights you into self-hatred, but then shows you the way out of self-hatred through the eternal support of certain (((institutions))) - so you do genuinely feel better, but only as long as you are hooked up to a system, and they keep threatening you with the absolute bottom of depression should you ever try and gain independence again. Most cults practice this approach in one way or another. It works because we are more receptive to internal self-criticism and external validation - so it puts your self-criticism into the overdrive and then gets you out with a specific tap of external validation, making you dependent on it.

[Anonymous No.20319994]

>>20319950
>It gaslights you into self-hatred
What are you refering to? Are you refering to the fact that christianity teaches you to feel bad after you (for example) stole something? I mean, who steals anyway...
>shows you the way out of self-hatred through the eternal support of certain (((institutions)))
That are really not that important anyway. Read Matthew 6:5-8. Jesus baptized us in his blood( Pious X'a Catechism), so no "institution" is actually required.
>we are more receptive to internal self-criticism and external validation
Any source on that? It feels like you are projecting, anon.

[Anonymous No.20320001]

>>20319994
>What are you refering to? Are you refering to the fact that christianity teaches you to feel bad after you (for example) stole something?
Not really, no - it teaches you to feel bad whenever you are not being validated specifically through Christianity.
>That are really not that important anyway. Read Matthew 6:5-8. Jesus baptized us in his blood( Pious X'a Catechism), so no "institution" is actually required.
So we shouldn't go to church, right?

[Anonymous No.20320056]

>>20320001
Almost checked, anon, i feel sorry for you.
Anyway,
>whenever you are not being validated specifically through Christianity.
How do you get validated through Christianity?
Like, are you refering to marriage? I dont have any other examples where you get "validated" by christianity.
And even marriage isnt actually anything trully validating, because monks get much more respect than married couple.
But monks are more respected because they have a lot of faith, and they prove it. That's why they are supported by christians. Because they have proofs of their faith. I mean, a man will be "validated" by christians even if he just helps a lot the community, something that is not very present in the NT (except for something in the Letters), because he can prove that he is a person that is productive and not lazy.
Can you elaborate a little bit better?
Maybe try to give some examples?
>So we shouldn't go to church, right?
Going to the church is nice and all, but honestly it's quite useless. You will get praised for that, just as you will get praised if you do Matins (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matins)), but it's actually useless. It's like making the sign of the cross, or wearing one. Do it, I mean, but you wont end up in hell for not doing it.
They are proofs of your faith, you committing time and energies for something that you like. That's what is encouraged by christians. Honestly this behaviour is encouraged in EVERYTHING, IMO. from school to hobbies. Nothing really "christian".

[Anonymous No.20320162]

>>20320056
>Going to the church is nice and all, but honestly it's quite useless.
Alright.

>How do you get validated through Christianity?
>Maybe try to give some examples?
>You will get praised for that
Khem.

>They are proofs of your faith, you committing time and energies for something that you like. That's what is encouraged by christians. Honestly this behaviour is encouraged in EVERYTHING, IMO. from school to hobbies. Nothing really "christian".
I never said that Christianity is special in that regard. I specifically stated the opposite.

[Anonymous No.20320271]

>>20317559
yes self esteem = pride. its one of those sin things.

[Anonymous No.20320316]

>>20320162
>Khem.
Meaning? People praise you because you work hard to achieve your dreams because of christianity? Then pic rel is the most christian person i've ever seen.
>I never said that Christianity is special in that regard. I specifically stated the opposite.
No, you said that it's similar to other cults, not that it's similar to society as a whole. I think you just need to get out and touch grass. You'll see atheists (and agnostics) praise you for this.

[Anonymous No.20320323]

>>20320316
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.20321312]

>>20319492
>the ego doesn’t exist
yes it does
>Freud was a Jew
yes he was
>all that exists is soul
yes

[Anonymous No.20321334]

>>20319950
nice
>>20319994
>universal issue is just anons issue
>furthermore he has to cope with the extra shame of having tried to cover it up
this is what sexual degenerates do
homos: you're secretly gay
polys: you're just jealous
women: who hurt you
heroin addicts: it's just a hobby (only YOU are weak enough to be addicted)

[Anonymous No.20322347]

>>20319929
That book sounds good. I feel like the other stuff you're recommending, as classic as it sounds, I've already tried it and it didn't really seem to work.

But I know that God doesn't fail, so the problem is mine. So I need psychology stuff. Hence my liking of that book. Thanks.

And I don't trust Thomas Merton. I'm sure he was good at some point, but he ended up running away from God, or looking like that's what he was doing. I can trust myself.

[Anonymous No.20323704]

>>20319929
>>20322347

Here is a reading of a letter that Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote to Thomas Merton, precisely on the topic of how good his early stuff was, but how he fell off at the end of his life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPlxSlHoDTs

[Anonymous No.20324976]

>>20322347
>>20323704
>And I don't trust Thomas Merton.

I hear you. In the late 50s and 60s, the fame and celebrity Merton achieved as a writer pulled him away from a single-minded devotion to his monastic vocation into more worldly fascinations and pursuits. (Mott's The Seven Mountains of Thomas Merton is the best treatment of this subject.) Fwiw, New Seeds, written in 1949, reflects none of this later dissipation, but rather the pure, fervent and completely orthodox devotion to Christ of Merton's youth, not to mention the undoubtedly God-given gift Merton had for remarkably insightful and inspiring spiritual writing. Pic related.