The human condition. We’ve all got it.
I’m almost surprised that the human condition didn’t make it into the APA’s recently released DSM-5. The DSM-5 is the is the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The APA is the American Psychiatric Association and the vanguard in the medical profession’s quest to medicalise all aspects of everyday life. If you think I’m being cynical, just read the DSM-5. You’re in it. And so are all your friends. We’re all in it together. The human condition.
What’s that you say? You read the DSM-5 cover to cover and you’re not in it? Sounds diagnostic to me! Clearly, you’re in denial. Denial’s symptomatic of half the mental disorders in the book! So I’m afraid you’re only fooling yourself. But never fear, the APA is here! Here to help you trade denial for acceptance and cold comfort for change. Soon everything will be all right. The struggle will be finished. You’ll win victory over yourself and love the APA.
Are we feeling comfortably numb yet?
I’ve always felt trapped by the human condition. Even to the point of contemplating knocking on the wrong door. But, thank God, I’ve always thought outside the box I’m stuck in, too. And here’s today’s Q&A. What to do about the human condition? There is NO dilemma. Denial or acceptance? A pox on both their houses! There is a third way. Transcendence. Not as in some mystical cop-out. As in break out of the box and set yourself free!
I’ve always wanted to be more God-like.
Of course, I haven’t always been a Christian but, one way or another, I’ve always been a transhumanist. Christianity is a doctrine of transcendence and the recommended (and only) path. But even if you don’t agree—and I know many of you are averse to “religion”—would you please at least make sure you’re signed up to some other transhumanism? Join me. Otherwise, who let you out? Back in your box!
9 thoughts on “The human condition”
…more Christ like…
Tim, point noted. So … what’s your take on Trinitarianism?!
God-like is theologically correct, if a crude way of saying it. The object of Christianity is to be at one with the Energies of God, though we can never be at one with His Essence, as Christ is. So to be God-like is fine, if this is what we mean. It means we are restored in the image of God, as we were before the Fall, and restored to Communion with God. It does not mean we seek to be God – a logical impossibility.
Crude but theologically correct … yes, that is my brief. 🙂
I get the idea of being more than one person. But Trinitarianism is asking for trouble, if you ask me. In logic, immediately you accept that 3 = 1 anything goes. Discussion rapidly devolves into one where no one really has any idea what they’re even talking about.
A case in point! All par for the course, of course.
Richard, have you considered an egg?
Reed, can you hatch a better analogy?
Richard, this link explains energy versus essence very well:
This is a bit more academic, but also good for clarification:
As for the Trinity, there is no doctrine of the Church that has been written about and debated/disputed than that one. Referring to your link, I thought CS Lewis expressed things remarkably well. However, your reference to Jesus’ words on the cross, and proposal that this “proves” his separation from the Father is false. See these links:
As I’ve said before, God did not separate from Himself to sacrifice Himself to appease Himself, and He is not “the God of the Volcano”. The Trinity is One God in Three Persons, Undivided. It would be very difficult to make Christianity stand up as a faith without this fundamental doctrine of the Trinity.
Thanks, Blair. I value your Orthodox opinions.
I’m mindful of this. I openly bring in destructive heresies!