| |
| ▲ | 9d 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | No problems inherently cause horror. It's when we feel unloved that the smallest problem can seem like a nightmare. Almost no one in the world truly has genuine, selfless love. So countless people's problems seem insurmountable to themselves. When someone is willing to lift some of your burden, or at least share in it, this is the only proof of genuine love, and even when it doesn't truly solve the problems, it reduces or even removes the horror from them. But it has to be someone other than you, because love must be given and received from an other, and we are not an "other" to ourselves, even if in brokenness we often seem so. I think this is probably best exemplified by Simon of Cyrene helping Jesus Christ carry his cross. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, that's just physical work, Jesus could have carried his own damn cross if he'd been super-strong like Samson. (Possible bible fanfic idea? Make Jesus basically Samson, see how it pans out.) But you're saying we can't quell our own anxieties. No auto-quelling. This is an interesting insight, although I think you overstate it because some auto-quelling seems to be possible. I am not very social, nor very anxious, but I suppose I take comfort in the output of others. In fact you can see video games that way: an opportunity to accept other people (game creators) making your life better, relieving your stress and anxiety. | | |
| ▲ | 9d 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not the physical act but the intent behind it that gives it meaning and value and power. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well the intent behind it wouldn't have been meaningful at all if Jesus had been stronger, so this example doesn't work. | | |
| ▲ | 9d 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the entire Passion, Jesus represented every individual person, the weakest, the most vulnerable, the guilty, the poor, the abandoned. However you treat them is how you treat him in that moment. So you can try to make that argument for him in context, but then you'd have to make the same argument for every instance where you could help someone but try to argue that you shouldn't have to. If an old lady falls and breaks a bone, will you call the hospital or blame her for not taking better care of her bone health? If you find a child crying in an alley, will you bring it to the authorities, or leave it there so you can look for the mom and find a way to blame her? People are meant to be helped, not victim-blamed. That's a very large point of Jesus and the Crucifixion. Whatever you do to him, you do to others, and whatever you do to the least in the world, you do to Him. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well nobody deserves blame for being a scrawny little weakling. However it's still technically possible to get stronger, which puts a hole in your assertion that it's impossible to improve one's own situation. It might very well be better if we help one another rather than trying exclusively to help ourselves (consider what Adam Smith had to say about the division of labor). But self-help and self-reliance still exist, when it comes down to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
