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.

[bernee51]

.

I was not speaking of the 'person' of Jesus.

What is noticed is the unrelenting denigration of Chritianity. The intolerance for people that lead such peaceful and exemplary lives, and the pigeon holing of a belief system that above all else is to be silenced.[/quote]

I not eh that the convesation has move don a littler from here, howeve I feel it necessary to comment...

I cannot see how my original piece was a denigration of christianity when it clearly targeted 'fundamentlism'. The is no intolerance of people living peaceful lives. I am not tolerant though of those (regardless of faith) who would want to shove it down the tbroat of the world.

Fundamentalism assumes that its worldview is the only correct worldview. Nothing outside itself is valid. It is a case of my beliefs right or wrong. (with no admitting of any wrong). As I said - pure nacissism. You Al have deoslayed such a view. You beliefs are narcessitic - that does not mean howeever, that you are a narciissist.

As narcissim is a pathology of human development, fundamentalism isd a pathology of social/spiritual development.

Thw world will never go forward when beliefs like this are held.

.
Yet, when the truth of the atheist beliefs system and its cause and effect on the history of mankind is presented in all of its glorius facts, the Christian endures epithets from those that hurl them with ease.

Irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

.

I will say it again. I am talking of religious fundamentalism.

Not an individual.

And I will again repeat that this statement is not accurate. There is no real reason to hide the hatred inherent in the anti-Christian position. It is simply there for all too see.

Give me evidence that the statement is not accurate. Show me that my position, in this argument, viz. fundamentalism = narcissim, is 'anti-christian'.

You see it that way Al for the very reason I stated in my original OP. Prove that it isn't so.

[AlAyeti]

Quote:

Quote:
All you seem to believe in is your one-sided interpretations of the Bible and religion in general. I'm fightened of your religion, your social views and a bit angry at God for things being the way they are.

Mel, you need to take a deep breath.

Al, you react/respond to just about anything that has "homosexual" related to it.

I am very concerned about the homosexual agenda. Do I need to post more facts about it? I am not the only person noticing that there is a malevolent force behind and within the homosexual cause. I oppose the sexualization of any child in any sexual way. It is just that the homosexual agends is so blatant in its goals and methods to acheive them. Now.

And if God gives me "breath", I'll take all that He gives me. I really didn't come here to battle YOU (per se), but every idea you put out that sit as some imposed-morality YOU approve of.

I presnt science and the Bible in equal amounts. This is what is done in debates.

There IS more than one way to look at all of this, I got that message many years ago; how about YOU?

Actually, I sat in the dark about what was going on in the world. And I couldn't have cared less. Now, sexual perversion is the only thing selling TV and print media and children are being brutalized by the sexualization of theor young world. Please try to rfute that? I don't really like battling url's of examples but I have shown time and again that the truth of what is happening to kids is very real and very evil.

People with your views, make me happy to say I am gay, especially in these fora, where people want to play high-authority know-it-alls.

Please point out one "OTHER" high and mighty Christian on these boards? I take the firm stand that I can prove my position and I have little fear of anti-Christians. This probably came from reading about the martyr Polycarp. Though I am of no similar worth. I just like his attitude towrds unbelievers as they attacked him. I have never feared bullies.

You aren't "right" about everything. Consider that "diversity" that you are trying to instruct me in, please.

OK, for the sake of argument, I'll believe that you that you feel the same way that I do about sexualizing children and that it can never be allowed. Please show me somewhere from the Bible that I can believe to accept the homosexual community in my Church?

Quote:
I am debating. Bobbleheads don't make for very diverse opinions.

Great, keep it up.

Quote:
I present a different side of the issue Mel.

No, YOU do exactly what you believe is correct.

Do NOT think you can influence very much, the methods or perspective I use to challenge you.

I only oppose views not individuals. You included. I stand alone in most threads Mel. I know other Christians that are supported by my views, they are just too afraid to be labeled the way you and others label me. I get a chuckle out of the ad hominem thing.

For while I'll respect your right to express a differing view or opinion, I'm not following yet another set of rules you wish to impose. Remember, that is where I'll challenge you every time; whether it's imbedded in your Christian theology, or addressing the fact that I need a "breath" (and you don't).

I am not your enemy, but I cannot agree to change the Bible for anyone. Me included. Please show me where I change the text of the Gospels to fit my opinions?

The way you feel about the Founding Fathers and our Constitution seems freaky to me; out of balance.

From the British perspective (my cultural background) I make complete sense.

The Constitution is just a written document to me. It has some good psuedo-Christian morality and some bad things laid out by Deists.

Quote:
And your opinion of The U.S. Constitution is far less substantial or significant, than the actual positive value which the document represents to the majority of America's citizens, this nation (and others abroad).

Any document that is used to promote pornography has to be changed. I mean that.

So YOU believe, and say. Oh well.

I wish you would have agreed with me about porno being not a good thing. Ridding it from society would be a good start to a better world.

I am honestly afraid of what YOU would do (to people in general), if you really had absolute power for a day.

Children would be raised by their biological parents or a good copy of that Godly mold. And yes, I can only be honest that a lot of people would have to hide. Pedophiles and "players" would be in the same underground caves with their "freethinking" supporters. Just being honest.

This sounds like an allegation using the current hate crimes legislation against Christaisns. I should be the one that as frightened.

Al, IF you believe the things you are saying (and I believe you do), you will be opposed at many turns. God may indeed agree with some of what you are thinking/believing, but I doubt that He agrees with ALL of what you share here.

And certainly IMO, the effect of many things you are saying do not lead me to think/believe you are dealing in truth or love.

I'm defending Christianity against monstrous views pitted against beautiful people. I cannot get them to play nice. Why should I?

(What? You don't expect to be challenged?!) Being challenged happens quite enough, when you are not considered a part of the mainstream (that could be me or you); get used to it man, your views are somewhat EXTREME. None of us were born (or born-again) last week (well...maybe someone was).

I obviously speak what millions of people voted for. I am not afraid to challenge anti-Christians. You should hear me on talk radio.

I see the effect of what you are communicating, to be of far greater concern in this reality, than the sexual practices of the average individual.

I am defending nice people. It seems that you are defending sexual perversion.

No, not that anything goes, but that what you are communicating here, isn't likely always "right".

I can only presnet the facts. And follow eher they lead.

Get used to the FACT, that other people are equipped to see into and beyond the things you say.

I do not agree with that at all. Most people are comfortable being told what to believe. Look at secularists for example.

That's true for all of us; no one knows everything; we ALL have some gaps in our collection of knowledge and wisdom. That should humble everyone (at least a little).

I take everything you present as important research material. That puts value on what you say.

[melikio]

I am very concerned about the homosexual agenda.

I surmise that you may be obsessed about the "agenda".

Do I need to post more facts about it?

No Al, YOU need to post more "sense" about it.

What may have meaning and significance to you, is not something you have proven to be of concern to all members of this society.

What are YOU going to do about homosexuals, Al? You don't like them, you don't trust them and they aren't going to fall off of the face of the earth. WHAT ARE YOU and the rest of US to DO ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS?

Your facts DO NOT overcome your BIAS, which tends to "skew" the truth. It's called "SPIN". You are painting a picture of homosexuals, that could convince some, to think we all (homosexuals) need to be shipped out to concentration camps and "dealt" with. THAT is exactly why your views and the social/spiritual TONE of them are frightening to ME and likely most other homosexual people.

I think it is disgusting how your comments almost always compare homosexuals to criminals (child molestors). And you wouldn't say that in public, because you know someone would have more to say about that "untruth" than mere "words". I'm reasonably civil and easy-going, but don't expect people to agree with your views. YOU (Al), will be challenged as long as your "message" (not merely the "facts" you submit) remains what it is.

So, while I'm concerned about many of the same things you are, I (and others cannot necessarily agree and abide with your viewpoints, perspective and/or conclusions.

You DO frighten me (with your views); don't be so SHOCKED that people aren't flocking to YOUR truths...I'm not likely the only person you are having such an effect upon. That's not paranoia talking, it is a reasonable and defensive posture that I find to be a necessity in this reality.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
I will say it again. I am talking of religious fundamentalism.

Not an individual.

And I will again repeat that this statement is not accurate. There is no real reason to hide the hatred inherent in the anti-Christian position. It is simply there for all too see.

Give me evidence that the statement is not accurate. Show me that my position, in this argument, viz. fundamentalism = narcissim, is 'anti-christian'.

Jesus taught complete selflessness. The absolute cure for narcissism. It is a fundamental truth of the Gospel.

BUT!

You relegate Jesus to a delusion suffered by His followers. And you go out of your way to couch your opinion in insult. "The little myth of Jesus" is a very insulting way to treat Christians. I'll bet a Muslim has never heard you say that of Allah.

If you didn't treat Christianty with such derision, then you could see FROM the Gospels that the FUNDAMENTALS (of what was labeled "Christianty" as a term of derision and had ITS basis in hatred) is pure tolerance for others. Yes that means that Non-Christians are more than likely going to hell, but that shouldn't even be an insult to a person that doesn't believe in anything anyway.

If you have a problem with people killing and physically harming others than that is in complete agreement of the FUNDAMENTALISM that Jesus taught. That is if you can take off your insult glasses long enough to see Christianty as having any worth.

Read the Gospels.

You attack an innocent and peaceful group of people that are excercising their independent Constitutional rights to vote their conscience. If it differs from yours on the worth of life of unborn children, or if it differes with your interpretation of family and marriage tough!

Freedom means you cannot control others either Bernee!

You choose to label Christians and denigrate them rather than to see them as independent people with the right to speak out on social issues.

In a Democracy others win the vote sometimes. Christians have endured their tax dollars for example, funding things that are 100% pure insult and anti-Christian to them. But, they cow tow to secular power without any physical conflict.

You refuse to use the Gospel to hold ANY Christians accountable but you will use atheism and secularism to accuse them of crimes. OK, but hold a Christian accountable from the Bible as well.

But, that would put a murderous "Christian" into the secular non-believer class and that hits just too close to home.









You see it that way Al for the very reason I stated in my original OP. Prove that it isn't so.

[bernee51]

Quote:
I will say it again. I am talking of religious fundamentalism.


Jesus taught complete selflessness. The absolute cure for narcissism. It is a fundamental truth of the Gospel.

From what I know of what Jesus taught and what fundamental christianity is, they would appear to be two different things. Jesus taught tolerance and inclusion - fundamental christianity as I have seen it displayed - here and elswhere - is promoting intolerance and exclusion - unles you believe what they (you?) believe.

Fundamentalist thought is a case of 'my religion right or wrong (but it is not wrong)'.

I have no argument with christians or christianity - I do have a problem with the warped interpretations of Christ's message that spill from the mouths of 'fundamentalists'.

Tell me again how fundamentalism is not narcissism. By accepted defintions of the term and the pathology it is classic.

You relegate Jesus to a delusion suffered by His followers. And you go out of your way to couch your opinion in insult. "The little myth of Jesus" is a very insulting way to treat Christians.

The message of Jesus is independent of his existence. The interpretations of that message and how to practice 'faith' are totally dependednt on the existence of Jesus.

I have stated many times that I have no problem accepting that an influential Rabbi Yeshua promoted messages of love and tolerance in Palestine 2000 tears ago. I have every reason to doubt, and deny, the existence of the man'god Jesus as depeicted in the bible.

I'll bet a Muslim has never heard you say that of Allah.

If I was i this sort of conversation with a Muslim I would have no problem expressing by opinions as to the existence of Allah.

If you didn't treat Christianty with such derision,

Show me where I have treated christians (the individuals) with derision as oposed to christianity (the ideology).

Yes that means that Non-Christians are more than likely going to hell, but that shouldn't even be an insult to a person that doesn't believe in anything anyway.

It is not tolerance, it is passive aggressive behaviour. (Which, btw, I always consider a safer option than active agressive behaviour.)

If you have a problem with people killing and physically harming others than that is in complete agreement of the FUNDAMENTALISM that Jesus taught.

Again I have no arguement with the basic message of Jesus, it is the message of the Buddha, it is the Perennial Philosophy

It is the interpretaion of this message and the misprepresentation ot 'fundamentalist christians' with which I take issue.

As Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

That is if you can take off your insult glasses long enough to see Christianty as having any worth.

I have never denied the inherent worth of the teachings of Jesus.

Read the Gospels.

You assume I have not - incorrectly.

Freedom means you cannot control others either Bernee!

So why would you move to control whether an individual can choose to have an abortion?

You refuse to use the Gospel to hold ANY Christians accountable but you will use atheism and secularism to accuse them of crimes. OK, but hold a Christian accountable from the Bible as well.

I don't know what you meanby this statement.

[AlAyeti]

From what I know of what Jesus taught and what fundamental christianity is, they would appear to be two different things. Jesus taught tolerance and inclusion - fundamental christianity as I have seen it displayed - here and elswhere - is promoting intolerance and exclusion - unles you believe what they (you?) believe.

Is it not fair to assert that by your very position on beliefs, that you view of Christianity and Jesus is quite slanted? I mean Jesus taught inclusion for reasons of accepting Him as Messiah. He also excluded some people as well. The parables are some of the scariest assertions ever spoken.

And repentance is the key. Your included if you repent and so long, have a nice life, if you don't. We'll still be here when you get back.

Fundamentalist thought is a case of 'my religion right or wrong (but it is not wrong)'.

Yes. It came from the supposed quotes from Jesus. Though Jesus wasn't starting a new religion but qualifying belief in God.

I have no argument with christians or christianity - I do have a problem with the warped interpretations of Christ's message that spill from the mouths of 'fundamentalists'.

Test all things and hold firmly to the truth. I would advise everyone to follow your ways on this.

Tell me again how fundamentalism is not narcissism. By accepted defintions of the term and the pathology it is classic.

Accepting definitions of the word? You have rejected the definition of the word applied to sexual deviants. Why should anyone take your lead here? Christians reject self aggrandizement and do good to those that persecute them. You have seen missionaries with your own eyes you said.

AlAyeti wrote:

You relegate Jesus to a delusion suffered by His followers. And you go out of your way to couch your opinion in insult. "The little myth of Jesus" is a very insulting way to treat Christians.

The message of Jesus is independent of his existence.

That makes little sense. Jesus and the belief about Him are fact and have little "faith" to do with the Gospel.

The interpretations of that message and how to practice 'faith' are totally dependednt on the existence of Jesus.

Christianity itself in the New Testament makes it clear that our faith is in vain if Jesus and the resurrection is not a fact. I admired that even before I accepted Jesus. The word "faith" is better translated as "trust."

I have stated many times that I have no problem accepting that an influential Rabbi Yeshua promoted messages of love and tolerance in Palestine 2000 tears ago. I have every reason to doubt, and deny, the existence of the man'god Jesus as depeicted in the bible.

I think that is also the message from the Gospels. There are many people mentioned in the Gospels that denied and doubted Jesus. And it wasn't long after Pentecost that He was denied as existing at all.

AlAyeti wrote:

I'll bet a Muslim has never heard you say that of Allah.

If I was i this sort of conversation with a Muslim I would have no problem expressing by opinions as to the existence of Allah.

Allow my skepticism to remain firm. But I'll stop the reference.

AlAyeti wrote:

If you didn't treat Christianty with such derision,

Show me where I have treated christians (the individuals) with derision as oposed to christianity (the ideology).

Bernee, why be coy? Your calling Christians mentally ill just a few paragraphs above these words.

AlAyeti wrote:
Yes that means that Non-Christians are more than likely going to hell, but that shouldn't even be an insult to a person that doesn't believe in anything anyway.

It is not tolerance, it is passive aggressive behaviour. (Which, btw, I always consider a safer option than active agressive behaviour.)

Still a concept that has no meaning in the life of an unbeliever can have no offensive nature applied to him. I do not care that I will never go on a Hajj and I do not care what Islam thinks about me. Or Mormonism, or Bahai's, or Hindu's or non-godians. But when I see beheadings and hate crimes legislation and ridiculous arguments leveled at Christians I speak up. Now.

AlAyeti wrote:

If you have a problem with people killing and physically harming others than that is in complete agreement of the FUNDAMENTALISM that Jesus taught.

Again I have no arguement with the basic message of Jesus, it is the message of the Buddha, it is the Perennial Philosophy

That shouldn't surprise anyone. Jesus is God. He created Sidhartha. And there are many good people that have lived in the brief history of humans. I would expect that loving your neighbor as yourself would follow the heart of a good person.

It is the interpretaion of this message and the misprepresentation ot 'fundamentalist christians' with which I take issue.

Jesus said absolute things. I now believe Him.

As Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I have learned to always take what a lawyer says as self-serving. They are trained to be slick talkers and to always get their point across. Ghandi was a political activist. And he was not shot by a Christian.

AlAyeti wrote:

That is if you can take off your insult glasses long enough to see Christianty as having any worth.

I have never denied the inherent worth of the teachings of Jesus.

And I have never implied that your views as an atheist haven't been awesome in most cases. I can completely understand Atheism if it comes from compassion for others. I cannot understand why good people have children with physical or mental problems (or worse) and decadent people have healthy children.

AlAyeti wrote:

Read the Gospels.

You assume I have not - incorrectly.

It seems quite clear to me that with the caliber of mind you possess that you haven't given the Gospels much time.

AlAyeti wrote:

Freedom means you cannot control others either Bernee!

So why would you move to control whether an individual can choose to have an abortion?

Science once again, has proven another Biblical perspective, of life in the womb. Why would you or anyone move to control the birth process? Why does a woman get to kill anybody?

AlAyeti wrote:

You refuse to use the Gospel to hold ANY Christians accountable but you will use atheism and secularism to accuse them of crimes. OK, but hold a Christian accountable from the Bible as well.

I don't know what you meanby this statement.

I hold Christians to the accountability laid out very clearly in the Bible. You hint that you know the Gospels but don't see that it is antithetical to Christ to be the kind of person you claim Fundamentalists are.

There are only fundamental parameters and defintions that can qualify the very nature of being a follower of Christ. Tenets, core doctrine, fundamentals. There si a line of demarcation. Sorry that you don't like absolutes in religion because you are an absolutist about God.

[trencacloscas]

Trenc, when you're right you're right. But your assertions are extremely disconcerting for me to believe that you have the slightest desire to give me peace and the right to express my views in the free exchange of ideas. I have actually never met an atheist that didn't believe that atheists should be running everything. Everything in one absolute view or else.

I have actually met many Christians that pretend that everything would be run by their Bible, or their interpretation of the Bible. Atheists? Well, atheists I knew rarely manifest themselves about the religious point of view. More or less, each and everyone try to put through his own point of view, that's why secularism plays the role so straight, because it's plural. Secularism and atheism are definitely NOT SYNONYMS, not at all. Secularism is just a system that regards everybody's right without considering religion. I don't think that atheists should be running everything, for instance, because atheism is not a party, or a system of ideas, or anything at all, just a mere label to try to gather some people that just don't live by religion in an artificial group that has no real identity. I wouldn't vote a party just because this party proclaim itself atheist. That would be ridiculous. But I'd be concerned if a party declares itself Christian, for I perceive the contradiction clearly. I would guarantee the right for that party to exist, be elected, and to express its ideas and projects, but I just wouldn't vote it, and of course I would resist any intent of damaging the principle of Church-State separation.

I think the danger of men like Richard Dawkins for example have been seen on the worlds stage before.

I'm sorry again, Al, but I don't quite understand what you mean here.

[melikio]

From what I know of what Jesus taught and what fundamental christianity is, they would appear to be two different things. Jesus taught tolerance and inclusion - fundamental christianity as I have seen it displayed - here and elswhere - is promoting intolerance and exclusion - unles you believe what they (you?) believe.

I agree; I have found the two things to be different also.

A major part of the problems which exist, are attributable to certain ways that human nature has affected Christ's message. It's the SAME human stuff that makes anyone hard to tolerate, specifically the arrogant idea that someone believes they are ALWAYS right, or more right than others. And this folds into relationships.

How can the so-called followers of a religion based upon having a relationship with the Creator, promote the idea that they know anything about relationships at all, if all people see is that they exclude/shun those outside of their well-defined, special group?

I would challenge any Christian, by saying that the LOVE of Jesus Christ was/is far superior to and unfathomably MORE universal than the avergage person today realizes. But again, even THAT is a statement based upon "faith" (on my part). I cannot prove these things, only invite and lovingly encourage others to "consider" these things. And that is done most effectively with my life; actions that show/prove I care; not merely professing some religious view or set of rules which likely only have meaning to those who have digested and accepted them as truth.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
I think the danger of men like Richard Dawkins for example have been seen on the worlds stage before.

I'm sorry again, Al, but I don't quite understand what you mean here.

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.

Quote:
Trenc, when you're right you're right. But your assertions are extremely disconcerting for me to believe that you have the slightest desire to give me peace and the right to express my views in the free exchange of ideas. I have actually never met an atheist that didn't believe that atheists should be running everything. Everything in one absolute view or else.

See the words in bold? I can be nice huh?

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

Please finish you thought process in that sentence. As it reads it doesn't make a point.

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, the latest in a long, long line of atheists that have certainly manifested themselves against religions.

I fear for the future of the education young people will get.

More or less, each and everyone try to put through his own point of view, that's why secularism plays the role so straight, because it's plural. Secularism and atheism are definitely NOT SYNONYMS, not at all.

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

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.

I don't think that atheists should be running everything, for instance, because atheism is not a party, or a system of ideas, or anything at all, just a mere label to try to gather some people that just don't live by religion in an artificial group that has no real identity.

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.

I wouldn't vote a party just because this party proclaim itself atheist

.

Good. recent world history would say that is a good idea. Not many people sneaking INTO communist coutries.

That would be ridiculous. But I'd be concerned if a party declares itself Christian, for I perceive the contradiction clearly.

I'm thinking Mormons. I'm thinking you have a good point.

I would guarantee the right for that party to exist, be elected, and to express its ideas and projects, but I just wouldn't vote it, and of course I would resist any intent of damaging the principle of Church-State separation.

Anyplace in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where "seperation of Church and State exists? I know it is an easy concept to find in many atheist organizations but I have yet to see it in the copies of the texts I just mentioned.

The point of this thread is that Christians may be suffering from a recognized mental illness that as yet has not been harrassed out of the DSM. Clearly the attempt to label Christians as nutballs is another well-founded atheist tactic.

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
From what I know of what Jesus taught and what fundamental christianity is, they would appear to be two different things. Jesus taught tolerance and inclusion - fundamental christianity as I have seen it displayed - here and elswhere - is promoting intolerance and exclusion - unles you believe what they (you?) believe.

I agree; I have found the two things to be different also.

As are wheat and tares.

The Gospel of Matthew:

Read 13:24-30. This is the story of the dirty trick. A farmer sowed his field with wheat seeds. An enemy maliciously over-sowed the same field with tare seed. "Tares" are probably "bearded darnel," a weed which is similar to rye grass. Since both wheat and tares are in the grass family, they look similar shortly after germination. But as soon as the wheat begins to form grains, the difference becomes very obvious. The fact that tares were not just occasionally present, but numerous throughout the field, made it obvious that someone had sown them because of malice toward the owner. The slaves wanted to pull the tares out because they sap nutrients and are vulnerable to parasites. But the farmer wisely forbade this. The solution was wait until harvest time and then separate them, storing the wheat and burning the tares.

But rememberthis isn't just a story about Palestinian agriculture (it is doubtful that something like this ever happened because people don't collect bags of tare seed). It is an illustration of both the mystery and final phases of God's kingdom (13:24a). Jesus gives us a partial explanation of the parable's meaning in 13:36-43 (read). This parable contains both old information and new revelation about the kingdom of God.

From: http://www.xenos.org/teachings/topical/ ... bles-2.htm