Fundamental christianity, is it narcissistic?

[bernee51]

In another thread the following exhange took place:

Me: You live a blinkered existence, blinded by your own perspective and a sociocentic, narcisstic religion.

Al: Narcissism? I'm am not a homosexual.

Me: Do you understand what is actually meant by narcissism? And why do you assocaiate it with homosexuality?

Al: You do know the story don't you? It is the reflection of the human body that should provide the empiricism necessary to accurately describe sex acts, the what and where.

But is that what it means. The 'story' of Narcissis is well known - the beautiful youth who fell in love with his own reflection and so on. But what does the myth mean and how does it relate to religion.

(Please note, the following discussion reflects on belief systems and does not indicate or mean to imply pathologies of any sort amongst the followers of these religions.)

In psychology narcissism (and borderline pathologies) indicate a problem with realistic emotional boundaries to the self. The individual lacks a sense of cohesive self. The self either treats the world as an extension of itself (narcissistic), or is constantly invaded and tortured by the world (borderline).

So let's look at fundamental religious belief. Any parallels? I have been told often enough by believers that if I do not embrace the teachings of Jesus I am bound for hell. The world at large, in fact, is really (or is believed should be) an extension of the dogma of the proscribed religiosity.

Or, as we have seen in other threads, there can arise amongst those who have these beliefs a definite feeling that the world is out to get their religion. That forces are gathering to bring them down - their beliefs are being invaded and tortured by, for example, 'hate speech' legislation.

Narcissism can be summed up in the statement "My country right or wrong" (of course you can subsitiute any belief system you like in place of the word country)

Fundamental religious beliefs are clearly sociocentric (the social equivalent of egocentrism). The world is seen from only one perspective. Development out of these mindsets can be defined as a successive decrease in sociocentrism. It is the development of an apersptectival, truly pluralist worldview.

Fundamental religion does not offer that as an option. It is definitely a case of - my religion, right or wrong, take it or leave it. And, by the way, if you leave it you are doomed.

[melikio]

The solution was wait until harvest time and then separate them, storing the wheat and burning the tares.

So when it's time to be "harvested", which category do you believe you'll be in? And why whould you be there over others?

I already KNOW that you aren't "sinless".

I can think of a few reasons that I do not match up to God's standard, so I'll tell you now, that I deserve to be burned.

(Again, a comment based upon "faith", not something that others must heed because I believe it.)

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

Darwin, Neitszche, Marx?

Their followers were sure their was no God.

Now the new breed have more facts by an impressive scholar to despise anyone that has the puny little reasoning powers to believe in God. I assume "nature will take its course." Again.

I never read such thing coming from Dawkins. He's just a scientist, he's opinionated but I just don't see the point. I am sure there is no God, and I know many people that don't believe in God, and neither myself or them are "followers" of Darwin, Nietzsche or Marx. What is the point, anyway?

I have actually met many Christians that pretend that everything would be run by their Bible, or their interpretation of the Bible.

was a response to your previous assertion:

I have actually never met an atheist that didn't believe that atheists should be running everything.

Quote:
Atheists? Well, atheists I knew rarely manifest themselves about the religious point of view.


Whuuuh? Please click on the ACLU or look up Micael Newdow

I stated "atheists I knew". I don't know this guy Newdow. But if his idea is to "impose" his particular views the same way Christians use to impose their religious views, I'm definitely against his "preaching".

Please allow me complete dissent of that offering of opinion. I am an empiricist.

No, Al, you are not. You demonstrated clearly that you don't even know what that word means. You just have got problems with definitions.
Atheism: a philosophical position, that don't recognize the existence of gods.
Secularism: a political position that embraces all religious positions without favouring any in particular and securing the right of everyone through the principle of separation between Church and State.

Quote:
Secularism is just a system that regards everybody's right without considering religion.


Please reread your sentence and please try to see the intolerance and exclusionary core of it.

No exclusion, and of course, no intolerance. You can participate in the State, but not as an agent of a Church. Nobody prohibits you to put up a Christian party (like the many that actually exist in Europe since the XIX century) in a secular State and be elected, but you cannot use the power of your Church to influence the State or get privileges for your religion over other religions or over non-believers.

Atheism? Not a "system of ideas?" It has as much history to it as does the enlightenment that birthed the new organizations that promote it! Wow.

Please point out these "systems" you claim. Some systems of ideas (like Comunism) may include atheism as a postulate, but that doesn't make atheism a system, just a random element in a particular view.

Anyplace in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where "seperation of Church and State exists?

Your Constitution is not mine since I don't live in the U.S.A., but almost every democratic constitution bears the principle of separation between Church and State, for it was the biggest advance provided by the French Revolution. Jefferson, like many other Fathers of your nation, was an admirer of Montesquieu (the creator of the principle) so I guess you only have to check it briefly to find it.

[AlAyeti]

I believe that John Locke was an empiricist.

My views about things are not only formed from the Bible but by what I "observe."

And I am still watching it all unfold in front of me. Interesting that "way back then," people were concerned about "what" atheists were.

I'm thinking of getting this book:

John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture
Series: Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History
John Marshall
The Johns Hopkins University
Hardback (ISBN-10: 052165114X | ISBN-13: 9780521651141)

Not yet published - available from February 2006 (Stock level updated: 17:56 GMT, 31 October 2005)

c. 50.00
This book is a major new intellectual and cultural history of intolerance and toleration in early modern and early Enlightenment Europe. John Marshall offers an extensive study of late seventeenth-century practices of religious intolerance and toleration in England, Ireland, France, Piedmont and the Netherlands and of the arguments which John Locke and his associates made in defence of universal religious toleration.

He analyses early modern and early Enlightenment discussions of toleration; debates over toleration for Jews and Muslims as well as for Christians; the limits of toleration for the intolerant, atheists, libertines and sodomites; and the complex relationships between intolerance and resistance theories including Lockes own Treatises.

This study is a significant contribution to the history of the republic of letters of the 1680s and the development of early Enlightenment culture and will be essential reading for scholars of early modern European history, religion, political science, and philosophy.

///

Here is something from Locke. It seems he was worried so many years ago about Atheists having dominion over others.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

////

And on the organized Atheist agenda? Interesting how the Separation of Church and State helps out the "cuase" of Atheism!

http://www.atheistsunited.org/

Welcome
Atheists United is the largest freethought organization in the Los Angeles area, and one of the largest atheist organizations in the country. We've been around since 1982.

Our Mission: 1) To promote atheism through education; 2) To do our part to maintain the separation of church and state; and 3) To create and support a vibrant atheist community.

Atheists United is the Los Angeles chapter of Atheist Alliance International. We offer a community to non-believers who feel disconnected in the world, providing a supportive shelter for those who struggle to live rationally in a world of religious beliefs.

[trencacloscas]

My views about things are not only formed from the Bible but by what I "observe."

First of all, decide yourself. Do you go by the Bible or by observation?, both things differ frontally in capital points. Second, you are quoting the intolerance of John Locke, not his views on empiricism. Third, please update your sources, empiricism has now many years behind and observation must be not only honest but contrasted to be valid.

About the Atheist Alliance International, please be an empiricist and check how really big is that association. I live in Europe, I consider myself an atheist, and I never heard about it, for instance. There is no problem in promoting atheism in education since many promote religiosity and even have religious schools dedicated to it. I, personally, prefer secularism, but I'm not judging others. To maintain the separation between Church and State is a must for every concerned citizen, for this is the principle that guarantees freedom of cult. About creating a "vibrant atheist community", well, that's their goal, I don't think they have achieved it, or will achieve it in the future really. Never an atheist association prospered before. And the reason is clear: atheists don't have anything in common.

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
My views about things are not only formed from the Bible but by what I "observe."

First of all, decide yourself. Do you go by the Bible or by observation?,

Same thing trenc. I observe the world going exactly the way the Bible indicates. Christion missionaries are intolerant monsters and Muslim terrorists are freedom fighters. And marriage and family? God only knows what will happen with there. But I'm guessing it ain't good.

both things differ frontally in capital points. Second,

Only to you. I see the "progressives" taking the world back passed Sodom and Gomorrah and straight to the days of Noah. And same conditions. No one is righteous. But I'm thinking the math presented by God to Abraham and Elijah is still a fact too. I know you have a Bible. Not everyone bows there knee to horror.

you are quoting the intolerance of John Locke, not his views on empiricism.

I beg to differ. He is making a very good point. In our world of today, most intelligent people mimick Christian morality as they see it works. But to question a person that thinks they came from nothingness is only smart. Locke just shows nothing changes. Like, the Bible says.

Third, please update your sources, empiricism has now many years behind and observation must be not only honest but contrasted to be valid.

Please nudge me and wake me up. I'm dreaming that men are demanding to marry men. Man, what a nightmare. I'm glad to know it's delusion.

About the Atheist Alliance International, please be an empiricist and check how really big is that association.

I am and I did. It is presented that atheists are not organized. I believe that belief doesn't pass the test.

I live in Europe, I consider myself an atheist, and I never heard about it, for instance.

I'm of European descent myself. In studying the history of Europe, it comes as no surprise that Europeans mangled "Christianity." It comes as no surprise either that there are so many godless. I'm thinking about Abraham's math though.

There is no problem in promoting atheism in education since many promote religiosity and even have religious schools dedicated to it.

Then I wish Atheists were honest and start their own private schools. But somehow I don't think families will flock to them. In the school my children attend, there are many non-Christians sending their kids there. But the again, what would Atheists do in a non-godian school? Their motivation for life would be gone as well.

I, personally, prefer secularism, but I'm not judging others. To maintain the separation between Church and State is a must for every concerned citizen, for this is the principle that guarantees freedom of cult. About creating a "vibrant atheist community", well, that's their goal, I don't think they have achieved it, or will achieve it in the future really.

I prefer a secular society as well. Unfortunately like so many other fine words, it has been hijacked to mean someting else. It now means anti-Christian. I live in America if you need an empirical perspective.

Never an atheist association prospered before. And the reason is clear: atheists don't have anything in common.

I so wanted to interject a smug reply but I am trying to turn over a new leaf. Hey, look a pagan reference to goodness. How open-minded of me.

[melikio]

IF an idea or belief like "Christianity", "atheism" (or other meme) is forced upon people, what good does it really lead to?

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Good point. But it is clear to me that secularism IS forced onto children in public schools by a lack of free exchanges of ideas.

Trenc says: I never read such thing coming from Dawkins. He's just a scientist, he's opinionated but I just don't see the point. I am sure there is no God, and I know many people that don't believe in God, and neither myself or them are "followers" of Darwin, Nietzsche or Marx. What is the point, anyway?

What is the point?

In the history of mankind faith in a deity is as natural as the instinct to eat. Atheists had to have their minds conditioned. As is clear from you and I Mel, we are Christians from very diverse vantage points.

Yet Christ is a fact to us both, otherwise, we cannot be Christians no matter what we think.

Which brings up this point.

Quote:
The solution was wait until harvest time and then separate them, storing the wheat and burning the tares.

So when it's time to be "harvested", which category do you believe you'll be in? And why whould you be there over others?

I already KNOW that you aren't "sinless".

I can think of a few reasons that I do not match up to God's standard, so I'll tell you now, that I deserve to be burned.

(Again, a comment based upon "faith", not something that others must heed because I believe it.)

"All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

I'm a fundamentalist. I believe that all means all . . . that call on the "Name" of the Lord. Both you and I know His Name.

[trencacloscas]

I see the "progressives" taking the world back passed Sodom and Gomorrah and straight to the days of Noah.

It's Ok, Al. When you confound fables with reality, there is not much left to talk.

[AlAyeti]

And trenc,

When your "proof" of the observable universe is figured out from 0 X 1, you have the kind of world in which secularism has fashioned. Chaos rules supreme.

Of course.

[trencacloscas]

And trenc,

When your "proof" of the observable universe is figured out from 0 X 1, you have the kind of world in which secularism has fashioned. Chaos rules supreme.

I don't know what you mean. I never exposed any cosmogony in this forum, you must be confounding me with someone else.