Christianity is Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

[Aloysium]

There is a consumerist, secular belief rooted in, but not attributed to Nietzschean ideas, that we have the right to do whatever we want. Happiness, being merely a subjective feeling, is to be determined by the person who should be free to satisfy himself in whatever manner he chooses. This is supposedly alright because there is no God, no sin. The church knowing otherwise addresses these problems, but is understood as making people feel bad by calling them sinners for doing what they will. Making people feel bad is viewed as even worse than telling them what to do. Thus they say that the Church in creating anxiety and then saying they have the solution, exhibits psychosocial pathology.

Most of the people repeating this nonsense really don’t know any better.
For those who know the truth, but whose faith is weak, it can be very scary. With prayer, contemplation and participation in the sacraments, one’s faith will deepen.
For those of us who have a solid understanding of God’s plan for us, it is best to heed today’s Gospel reading:
Luke 12: 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

That some people are really out of touch with what God demands of us, does not give us any more leeway in ignoring His imperatives.

Just some thoughts as I was thinking about my own situation.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

My point is that you have no explanation* for why the world is the way it is.

Christianity does: Original Sin.

*or a really, really lame one: “mostly fear” that I’m helping you to try to explicate.

What is horrible about thinking this is the best possible world that we could be living in at this time? Is a imagined utopia? No but why would you expect that just because you can imagine it?

It sounds terribly ungrateful to dismiss this world and everyone in it as flawed. Thanks for the gift but it kind of stinks.

 

[Frankenfurter]

To the OP, one of the key features of MSbP as you have described is that the situation is intentionally fabricated. Like many matters, intent is key.

So the fact that we need God, would have to be intentionally fabricated.

I am reminded of my children. They need me. I do not intentionally fabricate this need. It is our nature.

God says he is (by analogy) our Father.

The fact that all signs point to MSbP is not relevant because the intent is the key thing. It only appears to be MSbP if one assume the intent is fabricated. But it is not. The dependance of the child on the Father is real - not fabricated. Hence no MSbP.

Just like in your description - what if a nurse really is taking care of someone who is sick and gets attention from doctors because the patient is sick? Since her intention is not to fabricate anything there is no MSbP. See what I mean?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

To the OP, one of the key features of MSbP as you have described is that the situation is intentionally fabricated. Like many matters, intent is key.

So the fact that we need God, would have to be intentionally fabricated.

I am reminded of my children. They need me. I do not intentionally fabricate this need. It is our nature.

God says he is (by analogy) our Father.

The fact that all signs point to MSbP is not relevant because the intent is the key thing. It only appears to be MSbP if one assume the intent is fabricated. But it is not. The dependance of the child on the Father is real - not fabricated. Hence no MSbP.

Just like in your description - what if a nurse really is taking care of someone who is sick and gets attention from doctors because the patient is sick? Since her intention is not to fabricate anything there is no MSbP. See what I mean?

Yes I see your point but …you have to show not only intent but the illness is actual. That’s where we are now. Is original sin actual thing that we “suffer” from? If the illness is false the cure is false and unnecessary.

 

[PRmerger]

What is horrible about thinking this is the best possible world that we could be living in at this time? Is a imagined utopia? No but why would you expect that just because you can imagine it?

It sounds terribly ungrateful to dismiss this world and everyone in it as flawed. Thanks for the gift but it kind of stinks.

So you don’t have any explanation.

That’s what I thought.

I don’t think you’ve provided any coherent reason why someone should reject the concept of Original Sin and accept your (lack of) apologia as to why the world is as it is, rather than as it should be.

QED.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So you don’t have any explanation.

That’s what I thought.

I don’t think you’ve provided any coherent reason why someone should reject the concept of Original Sin and accept your (lack of) apologia as to why the world is as it is, rather than as it should be.

QED.

You are asking me to explain something based on a premise that is false. You are claiming because we can imagine a better world it should be so and we are somehow entitled to it. I don’t think that is so. There is nothing to explain.

We are both looking at a bowl of ice cream. You are claiming it should be a triple decker hot fudge banana split and asking me why it isn’t. I’m saying it’s a bowl of ice cream. If you can’t enjoy it, it’s your problem.

 

[Bagheera]

Aloysium:

There is a consumerist, secular belief rooted in, but not attributed to Nietzschean ideas, that we have the right to do whatever we want. Happiness, being merely a subjective feeling, is to be determined by the person who should be free to satisfy himself in whatever manner he chooses.

Incredible! To make all the non-believers explicit sociopaths, who will trample upon anything and anyone who stands in the way of their “subjective” happiness! However, statistics refute this ridiculous claim. As a matter of fact, the criminals are not overwhelmingly “secularists”, on the very contrary. There is no rampage of atheists, killing, raping and pillaging everyone who stands in their way.

Aloysium:

This is supposedly alright because there is no God, no sin.

No, it is NOT alright here and now, even without an assumed penalty in the “hereafter”. Humans are social beings, and for everyone’s best interest there needs to be a balancing act between the individuals and the society.

Aloysium:

Most of the people repeating this nonsense really don’t know any better.

Who repeats this nonsense? You just did.

It is true that the church believes (!) that there are certain human behaviors which are “sinful” even if that behavior is not just not harmful, but positively beneficial, or at least neutral. And that teaching is likely to create an intense guilt in some people, especially the children, teenagers and young adults. Just look at the moral theology forum, which is filled by guilt-infested threads.

But the harm does not stop here. The basic teaching is that we are all sinners, we all deserve eternal damnation and we cannot “earn” our “salvation”. We must see ourselves as undeserving anything better. And then the church teaches that there is a “solution”, namely submitting ourselves to the church. Ostensibly we can follow our conscience, but only if it is a “well-formed” conscience – and what a surprise, a “well-formed” conscience follows the teachings of the church. Henry Ford said in his famous quote: “The customer can have a car of any color, provided he wants black”. Of course most people do not subscribe to this teaching, but for those who do, it has disastrous consequences. The result is a total loss of self-respect.

There is one feature where there is a discrepancy when compared to the original Munchhausen Syndrome. The people who perpetrate these teachings honestly believe that they are right. There is no insidious effort to propagate control. There is an old saying: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. However, the honesty does not absolve them from the responsibility they must bear for their actions. Jonestown was not a typical example, but it clearly shows the devastating effect of uncritical beliefs.

 

[Aloysium]

Incredible! To make all the non-believers explicit sociopaths, who will trample upon anything and anyone who stands in the way of their “subjective” happiness! . . .

:coffeeread:

I was not talking about you and strawmen are not worth pursuing.

As to anxiety, guilt and shame, developmentally, they most definitely precede people’s involvement with the church. The church is not responsible for people’s “loss of self-respect”. My self respect is actually very good, as is my respect for everyone, since I know God loves us. Are you suggesting that there exists some natural man free of any church influence and thereby free of poor self-esteem. I am sure “statistics refute (such a) ridiculous claim”.

I stand by what I posted about what I see as a growing societal trend towards “a consumerist, secular belief rooted in . . . Nietzschean ideas”. If you are actually defending, perhaps promoting that sort of philosophy, then my comments do apply to you.

 

[1AugustSon7]

That makes it flawed?

According nature? It makes the child an easy lunch or, without the necessary benefit of human society (which is normally the child’s family) doomed to die anyways even if no predators are around.

Now when the child is grown a bit and no longer an infant - i.e. can talk or communicate - and he is forbidden by his mother from eating the cookies that are for treats and deserts, and desires, notwithstanding, to do so anyways, and does so anyways even though the child knows he should not; this is the beginnings of the flaw that the Church is especially talking about.

Or again, the teenager from a middle class family who nonetheless indulges with his buddies in some feats of daring and steals something from the local shop-owner just for the thrill. Later, we hope, he will feel guilty realizing the shop-owner needs these things to survive and provide for his family. But will the teenager return it? Or will he failt to for fear of shame or punishment or because he knows he cannot supply anything remotely like an adequate reason for why he did it? But notice that there is no guarantee that the teenager will even feel guilty or care in the first place as a consequence of his action.

Now I don’t suspect drugs will fix such problems, at least not without replacing them with new ones that are possibly worse. Zombies may not be capable of serious crime or even inclined to it. They might be quite passive and obedient if trained. They do not, however, make for the best conversation company. Education, more realistically, might help; but since when did being highly educated prevented men from becoming even monsters notwithstanding? White collar crimes are just as, if not even more, rampant than street crime and possibly far more costly for society. Most of these people don’t even have the excuse of an impoverished childhood or environment or lack of any opportunity. It was just pure greed and ambition. Too often they don’t even think they’ve really done anything wrong, especially if they adhere to a law-of-the-jungle ideology or survivalism, which is also increasingly rampant.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

According nature? It makes the child an easy lunch or, without the necessary benefit of human society (which is normally the child’s family) doomed to die anyways even if no predators are around.

Now when the child is grown a bit and no longer an infant - i.e. can talk or communicate - and he is forbidden by his mother from eating the cookies that are for treats and deserts, and desires, notwithstanding, to do so anyways, and does so anyways even though the child knows he should not; this is the beginnings of the flaw that the Church is especially talking about.

Or again, the teenager from a middle class family who nonetheless indulges with his buddies in some feats of daring and steals something from the local shop-owner just for the thrill. Later, we hope, he will feel guilty realizing the shop-owner needs these things to survive and provide for his family. But will the teenager return it? Or will he failt to for fear of shame or punishment or because he knows he cannot supply anything remotely like an adequate reason for why he did it? But notice that there is no guarantee that the teenager will even feel guilty or care in the first place as a consequence of his action.

Now I don’t suspect drugs will fix such problems, at least not without replacing them with new ones that are possibly worse. Zombies may not be capable of serious crime or even inclined to it. They might be quite passive and obedient if trained. They do not, however, make for the best conversation company. Education, more realistically, might help; but since when did being highly educated prevented men from becoming even monsters notwithstanding? White collar crimes are just as, if not even more, rampant than street crime and possibly far more costly for society. Most of these people don’t even have the excuse of an impoverished childhood or environment or lack of any opportunity. It was just pure greed and ambition. Too often they don’t even think they’ve really done anything wrong, especially if they adhere to a law-of-the-jungle ideology or survivalism, which is also increasingly rampant.

Huh?

Originally you said

I child is born in absolute ignorance and entirely dependent upon others to survive.

And I asked

That makes it flawed?

I’m unsure your post has to do with any of this.

We are social animals that go through different developmental stages. There are other examples in the world, our great ape cousins for example go through similar stages. How is that evidence of our flawed nature?

It may be clear to you but I’m missing it.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Yes I see your point but …you have to show not only intent but the illness is actual. That’s where we are now. Is original sin actual thing that we “suffer” from? If the illness is false the cure is false and unnecessary.

No, we don’t have to show anything. You were simply presented with a critique that has a simple counter argument. Those that have not yet encountered God are still looking for proof. These kinds of simple dismissive ideas, like saying that Christianity is just MSbP, is just a way to dismiss it. But it proves nothing either way.

Do not let the burden of proof be shifted in your arguments.

The burden of burden lies with the accuser.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, we don’t have to show anything. You were simply presented with a critique that has a simple counter argument. Those that have not yet encountered God are still looking for proof. These kinds of simple dismissive ideas, like saying that Christianity is just MSbP, is just a way to dismiss it. But it proves nothing either way.

Do not let the burden of proof be shifted in your arguments.

The burden of burden lies with the accuser.

What is the simple counter argument?

 

[Ismael]

I came across a new (well, new to me) critique of Christianity this weekend and wondered if anyone has heard it before and thoughts about it.

The basic premise is that Christianity is Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP).

The claim is that there is nothing wrong with us but we are told that there is and God has the only cure and the cure is Himself. By keeping us thinking we are spiritually ill we focus our attention on Him. That is why the only thing that could “cure” the Fall was the incarnation. We could never fix or appease the damage. Even with the “cure” we are still born with original sin. If the cure had been absolute everyone born after the Death and Resurrection would have been born without it. But we are all still “born sick” so we need God and the Church perpetually because we will be always spiritually sick.

Why? He likes the attention. The first commandment was used as an example.

Also, The Church was also described as a business and keeping contributing members was the business model. The Church are the “keepers of the cure” so people who thought they were sick wouldn’t leave the cure.

The reason in their opinion that Churches are empty is people don’t feel that sense of “sickness” so they don’t seek a cure.

Not sure if trolling or drunk…

In any case it’s nonsense.

Those who truly follow Christ are not in the business of guilt-tripping, but usually, in spite of all the suffering that is in their life, they are joyful people.
Many saints are a testimony to that.

Surely much more joyful that sour-puss atheists who live their life frowning away and write patheitic critiques based on superficial and flawd analysis of scriptures (but then when you start your analisys with a conclusion there is no way out).

Instead of tripping in your own head, you should go meet some real people.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Not sure if trolling or drunk…

In any case it’s nonsense.

Those who truly follow Christ are not in the business of guilt-tripping, but usually, in spite of all the suffering that is in their life, they are joyful people.
Many saints are a testimony to that.

Surely much more joyful that sour-puss atheists who live their life frowning away and write patheitic critiques based on superficial and flawd analysis of scriptures (but then when you start your analisys with a conclusion there is no way out).

Instead of tripping in your own head, you should go meet some real people.

No true Scotsman
Reductio ad absurdum
Ad hominem

Do have any real critique or are you happy with your logical fallacies?

 

[Aloysium]

No true Scotsman
Reductio ad absurdum
Ad hominem

Do have any real critique or are you happy with your logical fallacies?

The post that you are referring to made me smile because I saw some truth in it.

I suppose I would tend toward what the world might consider “logical fallacies”.
It is all about the “ad Hominem”: getting to know the other, the argument being peripheral, an excuse for the meeting of persons.
Truth for me lies in the actual relationship that I am having with any particular individual rather than the always limited, smoke-like ideas that we would be sharing

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The post that you are referring to made me smile because I saw some truth in it.

I suppose I would tend toward what the world might consider “logical fallacies”.
It is all about the “ad Hominem”: getting to know the other, the argument being peripheral, an excuse for the meeting of persons.
Truth for me lies in the actual relationship that I am having with any particular individual rather than the always limited, smoke-like ideas that we would be sharing

Ad hominem is arguing against the person rather than the idea. Not an interpersonal connection. It would be like saying how can we believe anything the Church says they have had priests convicted of pedophilia. The merits or deficiencies of the argument aren’t addressed. The person making it is attacked. Not the greatest way to start a relationship.