Paul in Romans 7 & the Modern Psychoanalysts
I have noticed 2 contrasting themes in listening to much of your work - IE you propose rules for life through your books (IE a written law), and you have also said that listening to your conscience (IE the voice of the Holy Spirit) point to "what you could be" is an important compass for life. In contrast, you then also agree with the modern psychoanalytic idea that we cannot create our own values, we cannot summon ourselves to change because of our vulnerability to outside forces, or perhaps we could say "spirits". Have you considered therefore that your position is congruent or at least sympathetic to the apostle Paul? I have been mapping the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans (beginning 7:7) onto Freud’s ideas of "we are not masters of our own house". I have 2 points to focus on here. Paul in this famous verse entitled "struggling with sin" makes the argument that God's supreme ethic for life is: 1) A validated map for life because it is what our conscience is ultimately pointing to and 2) Sets the stage for the way out to freedom through the life and work of Christ and the subsequent animation of the Spirit of Christ Point 1: In his argument for the validation of a supreme ethical map, he states (v15): "I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good." (NLT Version) We therefore have a biblical example of our conscience validating and establishing a superordinate ethical map (in this case, the law of Moses - which was then later synergized by Jesus as "Love God, then love people") Point 2: Freud famously noted that we are not the masters of our own house and that there were unconscious forces at play that influenced our decisions without our knowing it. Map this on with Paul's follow up statement (v22): "I love God’s law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me." Now it occurred to me that given Freud's comment above, how can one claim to really be free? The Christian answer from Paul is that the only free slave is the one enslaved and therefore animated by the Spirit of Christ. In his letter to the Galatians, he writes (Ch 5: 16-18): "Live freely, animated and motivated by God’s Spirit. For there is a root of sinful self-interest in us that is at odds with a free spirit, just as the free spirit is incompatible with selfishness. These two ways of life are contrary to each other so that you cannot live at times one way and at times another way according to how you feel on any given day. " (MSG) So it occurred to me that if the human condition is subjected to the “animation of spirits”, given our environment and our human ontology, then everything excepting the self-sacrificing love which perfectly accepts: a) The world as such: suffering and malevolence intrinsic to life in our environment in the world and; b) Being as such - An unflinching commitment to coherent truth in the service of love is the way out of the conundrum of “sin” and into freedom. For Paul, the good news of integration of Christ is the answer, as he finishes by saying: "Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord" So after all this background contextual set up, my question to you is: Would you agree with my mapping of Freud/Jung with St. Paul's doctrine as above is coherent? And what are your comments on this from a psychological and spiritual point of view?
beliefs that require lies to support
In God, Consciousness, and the Theories of Everything | Curt Jaimungal | The JBP Podcast | #239, starting @ 23:20 Curt proposes (& Jordan agrees) that supposing that it's alright to adhere to a belief that requires lies to support is a sign of "going too far". How does Dostoevsky's "Dream of the Ridiculous Man" demonstrate how lies corrupt the social discourse. How does this parallel the narrative of expulsion from Eden?
How do people that are very low in agreeableness have a good relationship?
I'm very low in agreeableness (2nd percentile according to understandmyself.com). I suspect my (high-energy) 6 year old son is in the same ball park. As you might suspect, we are constantly at each other's throats. Do you have any advice for how two people low in agreeableness improve their relationship?
A spiritual visitation.
A few years ago, you recalled a strange experience. One day, a consciousness or energy field of some kind entered your room and partially descended over you and waited for a response. You said you rejected it. As it withdrew, you had a feeling it was disappointed, but not angry. If you ever have such an experience again, how will you respond?