Messiah and God Complex vs the People

[sawthelight]

I have read the People vs Muhammad and met some people who have this 'Messiah and God complex'. One person acted out in violence while the other was more peaceful in their approach for god.

It seems that over 10% of the population of the world suffer from this disorder (according to J.K Sheindlin "The People vs Muhammad) and have symptoms such as "narcissism", "grandiose illusions", and "schizophrenia".

I can see people claiming they are Jesus to be delusional as that is impossible according to Christianity for another Jesus to be alive unless it is the actual end of times (which I don't see nukes going off yet).

But what about those who just claim to be god's messenger? They don't claim to be a messiah but just another one of god's people. Are they truly delusional? Why does it seem even the Christian community would dismiss someone claiming to be a messenger of god when they are both following the same religion? Perhaps it's okay to believe in the same law of god but not carry out god's command lest one would be called a messenger of god?

What makes then the rest of religious society considered to be "sane" if both sane people and god complex people are following the same religion and it's tenets?

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 8 by gordsd]

True. Lol. Who really are the crazy ones? Everyone is crazy in someone else's eyes. And everyone is right in their own eyes. No one can admit defeat.

But I think the fact that people in church being so passive show that most of the mass are not willing to wake up. Even if someone showed them the truth, they would most likely stay where it is comfortable. It seems like for them it is too much of a burden to wake up and take the action required against the status quo.

I wanted to bring up a point on the last article with the link you provided. I had to point something out which seemed to be a mistake on the writer's part:

The usual contention is that we need a standing army to protect the country from foreign invasion. Every intelligent man and woman knows, however, that this is a myth maintained to frighten and coerce the foolish. The governments of the world, knowing each other's interests, do not invade each other.

I think this writer is mistaken on saying it is a myth to protect yourself from foriegn invasion. How about Belgium under attack during WW2? Belgium declared itself a neutral state who wanted to have peace. However, wanting peace does not mean other countries will not invade. In fact, Germany successfully invaded Belgium and the casualties for Belgium were:

Killed in action: 6,093 and 2,000 Belgian prisoners died in captivity[37]
Missing: more than 500[37]
Captured: 200,000[136]
Wounded: 15,850[136] -(Wiki)

Or how about the Chatham Islands of Polynesia? Centuries of independence comes to and end for the Moriori people in December 1835. In that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes land on Moriori land and started declaring sovereignty over them. Since the Moriori were a peaceful nation and decided to settle the matter as they have always done, peacefully, they were met with bullets and hatchets to their graves. Roughly 1000 of them had died.(Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond pg 53)

I'd be pretty choked if some dude came into my house, took everything, and hurt my family members simply because I didn't know how to swing with a sharp weapon. Sure it might sound like a myth and it may not happen to many people but fact is it has. Am I condoning violence if I say to others and myself, that we need to use violence when necessary?

[gordsd]

[Replying to intheabyss]

I think this writer is mistaken on saying it is a myth to protect yourself from foriegn invasion. How about Belgium under attack during WW2? Belgium declared itself a neutral state who wanted to have peace. However, wanting peace does not mean other countries will not invade.

I agree, it seems she pushes her point a little too far. The essay was written before WW II. So, it was before that great destruction. She also supported the Spanish socialist anarchist revolution in Spain who definitely armed themselves, and needed to defend themselves with weapons, so I don't think she was a pure pacifist. You make a good point mentioning Belgium and the Chatham Islands and I agree. However, I do think she gives a good opposing viewpoint to the mass spending on arms we do today in rest of her essay.

[sawthelight]

I agree, it seems she pushes her point a little too far. The essay was written before WW II. So, it was before that great destruction. She also supported the Spanish socialist anarchist revolution in Spain who definitely armed themselves, and needed to defend themselves with weapons, so I don't think she was a pure pacifist.

If she knew people should defend themselves, why would she write the opposing view? to lay down in peace?

[sawthelight]

I think there are degrees of the 'Messiah and God complex.' I mean, doesn't everyone want to be a hero is some way? Yet not many want to be considered crazy, so to say one is a Messiah is pushing the envelope, but to say one is a messenger is culturally acceptable: like being called to be a minister or a missionary, etc. It is interesting that this is never questioned by mainstream thinking—as you put it. So it is OK to believe that which is acceptable.

Yea I agree people have that hero complex in them. I personally get embarrassed from time to time with this complex. Sometimes it isn't so bad when you look bad-ass in front of some hotties but most of the time it can make me look arrogant.

Still you gotta make some hard choices sometimes. No one is perfect.

I prefer the humbling of self though. It just feels better.

I also agree that being the "messenger" is also an acceptable thing. Still it seems uncommon to say "messenger" as "pastor" or "missionary" is more widely used worldwide. The "messenger" complex could open you up for mental illness diagnosis from health community.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 11 by intheabyss]

If she knew people should defend themselves, why would she write the opposing view? to lay down in peace?

I don't know, but her essay was written in 1908; this was before WW I which did n't get started until 1914 and the Spanish Revolution didn't start until 1936, so she wrote this when she was very young. I assume she changed her views as she grew older? But I think the other points of the essay still apply.

[gordsd]

[Replying to post 12 by intheabyss]

Sometimes it isn't so bad when you look bad-ass in front of some hotties

LOL! Yep, I've fallen into that trap too!

The "messenger" complex could open you up for mental illness

Agreed!

[sawthelight]

So basically, it is more normal to be passive in religion. And it is abnormal to be more active for religion. That's a funny take-away.

[gordsd]

[Replying to intheabyss]

So basically, it is more normal to be passive in religion. And it is abnormal to be more active for religion. That's a funny take-away.

Sadly, in a way, I think that is true. We're trained from birth to do what we are told: starting with our parents who are looking out for our safety, and then in school, our teachers are trying to educate us, but passive conformity seems to be the effect, and conformity, often, is about control. It seems to be much easier, as well, to just conform passively. To question the status quo of certain accepted traditions is to break the harmony and unity. Maybe this is why we have a nation of non-thinkers? No one wants to be labeled a trouble maker and crazy!