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.

[trencacloscas]

Quote:
Nacissus, was in "love" with himself and could not "do" anything about it.

He was in love with someone of the same sex.

Lainey wrote:
I don't think that was the point of the story...I'm surprised that anyone would see it from that angle.

Now I see you mention this, it moved a remembrance in my mind. There was a priest that was sent to my congregation once to discuss sexual education. This was considered back then a sort of ultra-liberal advance, a sort of clean guide for young Christians. I cannot explain how pathetic it was, really, and you can imagine, anyway. But I do remember an argument about masturbation that is interesting to share. This priest just mentioned that if one masturbates, he is in fact having sex with oneself, and being oneself a male, it represents in the end an act of homosexuality. He even finished off the argument with an ominous "Think about it" as he would just have said something pretty smart and intelligent. I must say that this kinky, twisted way of thinking about sexuality is very common in Christianity, and I found it under the shape of the most exquisite and distorted extremes of nonsense.

[AlAyeti]

It is clear that religious fundamentalists do not want a plural world, the same happens with nationalists. A plural world is too much to handle for extremists of any nature, they feel more comfortable with a predictive, unchangeable and pre-established set of norms. And of course, they only found identity in a group they label as the best, where the good ones are. Self indulgence for the group is one of the true characteristics of fundamentalists.

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

Atheists are every bit the proselytizers of their belief system and as loudly as any religionists. Everything you present is designed for me or any other religious person to follow your way. Certainly when I apply bobbleheadism to the subject . . . Christians show by the very nature of denominations that they are better "freethinkers" and are not chattering the same atheism-evolution-diversity, chant, incessantly droned by those that only promote one world view.

Michael Newdow another intolerant atheist that has to force HIS beliefs on the entire United States, would be a good candidate for a mentally ill person. Narcissism is clearly something he appears to be suffering.

In fact isn't atheism the perspective of a person claiming to be the only center of it all, while somehow being an accident of natural design to come to this complicated thought process. Apes are not buying life insurance and care nothing for 401K savings.

And please Evolution "is" the "religion" of atheism. Prophets, history and all.

Since atheists have ruled countries and are ruling them now, why would I a Christian think that a totalitarian secularism is better than a Theocracy based on loving your neighbor as yourself and doing good to your enemies?

Clearly the examples of atheist countries (and of course Islamic) past and present, do not present a free exchange of ideas and freedom for all.

Why should a voter like me trust secularism? I see some good in it but only if those that love God with all of their hearts and minds are major players in all decisions.

I feel that the message from the atheist is that they have to make all of the decisions on secularism. And indeed, the jury of history has weighed in on the dangers of that.

I am a Christian and see diversity including Christianity and Christians. Is that an intolerant or narcissistic mindset?

[Cathar1950]

AlAyeti wrote:

In fact isn't atheism the perspective of a person claiming to be the only center of it all, while somehow being an accident of natural design to come to this complicated thought process. Apes are not buying life insurance and care nothing for 401K savings.

And please Evolution "is" the "religion" of atheism. Prophets, history and all.

I do not think that is the stance of an Atheist. Usually depending on the situation it mean non belief in God or at least your God. Historically it is a reaction to bad theism.
Evolution is not the religion of any one it is a theory about adaptation and change based on scientific analysis. I would say if you looked at History the Bible and the prophets you would see evolution on the cultural level at least.

Since atheists have ruled countries and are ruling them now, why would I a Christian think that a totalitarian secularism is better than a Theocracy based on loving your neighbor as yourself and doing good to your enemies?

Both forms of totalitarian Theocracy or other are oppressive. Christianity as the rule as not performed and better then others including the Hebrew kings. As an idea and goal "loving your neighbor as yourself and doing good to your enemies" has never been tried in any form of gov. do to the voluntary and sympathetic orientation one would need to live even in principle.

Why should a voter like me trust secularism? I see some good in it but only if those that love God with all of their hearts and minds are major players in all decisions.

You don't have to trust it just function with other members of you society.
It is secular for a reason. The reason being that it prevents religions from dictating as they have in the past life and interests.

I feel that the message from the atheist is that they have to make all of the decisions on secularism. And indeed, the jury of history has weighed in on the dangers of that.

History was why the founding fathers chose secularism, not to be confused with atheism, to prevent the religious oppression that has taken place over and over.

[melikio]

History was why the founding fathers chose secularism, not to be confused with atheism, to prevent the religious oppression that has taken place over and over.

If I had not seen the effect of having my own religious beliefs and those of others challenged (not blatantly, arrogantly or by choice), but by necessity...I would never have understood things the way I do now.

Secularism is not necessarily anti-God or anti-religion. Religious extremists have in many cases hi-jacked society, and today (because of mankind's historical record) we understand well-enough, that any form of a "theocracy" is not where we need to head.

I make a distiction between the good and bad that people do, despite religion or secularism. And Jesus would certain make a similar distiction TOADY, if he walked the planet.

The concepts of LOVE that Jesus shared with mankind, are not impotent or weak as many think. Even so, I'm not going to go person to person DEMANDING they follow those concepts exclusively. Really, the only time I need to be in people's faces with my views, is when they are intending to or actually stepping upon my rights, freedoms and liberties as a human being. The U.S. Constitution takes care of the rest. I'm not personally leaving God out of my equation to reality, but I have a non-transferrable spiritual understanding of who He is, or what he "might" be thinking.

I don't see where Jesus would have FORCED his way into people's hearts as a practice. After all, what good is a belief FORCED upon a person's heart, that is generally contingent upon people's willful acceptance (faith) of a salvafic "gift" (eternal life)?

Two things:

1. No one's GOOD behavior gets people into heaven.

2. People cannot be forced to "accept" a gift (especially not into their hearts), and for Christians, if that "gift/rescue" isn't offered within the parameters below, it (the offer) will likely be ineffective:

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=51;

[13For you have been called to live in freedom--not freedom to satisfy your sinful nature, but freedom to serve one another in love. 14For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[c] 15But if instead of showing love among yourselves you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=51;

I haven't met ANY "Christian/s" who have absolutely possessed such perfection and/or verified the repentance (which many address), that they could get into heaven without a MASSIVE amount of grace from God. I STOPPED looking for that (kind of perfection) in people many years ago, because I was always disappointed or accepting some compromise. Now I know why salvation is a "gift", in a very real way.

Then I looked at my own SIN and understood the same. Sure, a person can and likely will struggle with their human sexuality (one way or the other, as in my case), but these self-appointed Christian Commandos out here getting in people's faces about things, doesn't really help, nor does it truly represent the essence of Jesus' gift to mankind.

Some people mistake being the "salt" for being a BLOCK of it that they are willing to drop upon hapless unbelievers or sinners. Perhaps they FEEL vindicated and righteous, but history and the LIFE of Jesus Christ shows many that their view of and/or implementation of "Christianity" is generally skewed or extreme.

Mind your own sins (primarily), put on LOVE...and be effective; not an annoying or even incapacitating THORN. Look at it this way: People have ENOUGH to deal with, without Joe-Christian coming along, his "religion wrapped up in his FLAWED human personality...playing God. Telling that guy to "GET LOST", is not the same thing as rejecting God or Jesus. For if you think that beating on someone with a religious hammer (or action of similar effect) is the answer, with such a generally narcissitic attitude accomplishes God's will, you likely need to re-think your view of what Christianity really is.

I can agree (believe by faith) that Jesus was a superior human being, and even the Son of God; but just because someone claims to be a follower, doesn't make THEM better (not one bit more) than any other sinner they might encounter in their Christian walk.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
Quote:
In fact isn't atheism the perspective of a person claiming to be the only center of it all, while somehow being an accident of natural design to come to this complicated thought process. Apes are not buying life insurance and care nothing for 401K savings.

And please Evolution "is" the "religion" of atheism. Prophets, history and all.

I do not think that is the stance of an Atheist. Usually depending on the situation it mean non belief in God or at least your God. Historically it is a reaction to bad theism.
Evolution is not the religion of any one it is a theory about adaptation and change based on scientific analysis. I would say if you looked at History the Bible and the prophets you would see evolution on the cultural level at least.

The only stance I have seen from an athiest is to harass and outlaw Christianity. Evolution is like religion it has a thousand opinions about the right way to interpret it. I liked the "reaction to bad theism" line.

Quote:
Since atheists have ruled countries and are ruling them now, why would I a Christian think that a totalitarian secularism is better than a Theocracy based on loving your neighbor as yourself and doing good to your enemies?

Both forms of totalitarian Theocracy or other are oppressive. Christianity as the rule as not performed and better then others including the Hebrew kings. As an idea and goal "loving your neighbor as yourself and doing good to your enemies" has never been tried in any form of gov. do to the voluntary and sympathetic orientation one would need to live even in principle.

Well said. As long as men (mankind) are the place we find our leaders we will also find problems.

Quote:
Why should a voter like me trust secularism? I see some good in it but only if those that love God with all of their hearts and minds are major players in all decisions.

You don't have to trust it just function with other members of you society.
It is secular for a reason. The reason being that it prevents religions from dictating as they have in the past life and interests.

But if Christians are allowed to vote they will vote their conscience. It is very difficult to function with members of a society that think it is OK to slaughter unborn children for the convenience of not having to face consequences. As we can see from the VD rates, Liberalism is falling on as many deaf (or ignorant) ears as the words of Christ.

Quote:
I feel that the message from the atheist is that they have to make all of the decisions on secularism. And indeed, the jury of history has weighed in on the dangers of that.

History was why the founding fathers chose secularism, not to be confused with atheism, to prevent the religious oppression that has taken place over and over.

I am confident in asserting that the founders would not have foreseen their precious freedom of speech (which was designed for religion) to protect pornography, abortion and the destruction of the family, as protected civil rights.

And they had no idea of what was coming in the "evolution" of atheism. The Constitution is literally worshipped by atheists and yet, it is only writings by men. Traitorous old world men at that. Thomas Paine the most highlighted and misguided of them all, but of course T. Jefferson close on his heels.

[melikio]

The Constitution is literally worshipped by atheists and yet, it is only writings by men. Traitorous old world men at that. Thomas Paine the most highlighted and misguided of them all, but of course T. Jefferson close on his heels.

I really wouldn't compare the Bible to the U.S. Constitution; that's apples/oranges. And do you think that certain atheists cannot use the Bible against Christians as well? Is there anything that we can grasp, which transcends the typical arguments we all know so well? I think Jesus provided that, and because of the dust clouds surrounding all the fussing (picture the dust-ball when characters are fighting in cartoons) , people MISS the most important point/value that Jesus propagated (love...John 3:16).

One significant truth is:

The form and function of our Constitution reflects more wisdom than the mere opinions of people holding to the extreme views of the present day. It in fact protects those who post here, AND also provides the overall forum for the exchange of ideas throughout our nation.

We may disagree with certain rulings made, and liberties granted under the U.S. Constitution, but it lays some of the best ground rules for allowing human beings to basically get along in a single civilization ever known to man. Even so, just like the "Bible", it is no magic-bullet that can effortlessly resolve man's problems. Still, I believe it is a higher and more useful standard, than mankind's lower nature. It isn't about "faith" per se, but it allows for the free practice of the same. That's hard to beat, and likely NO PURELY RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT would regard individual free will to the significant degree which the U.S. Constitution typically affords the average person (citizen). A nation based on LOVE itself (1Cor. Ch.13, Galatians Ch.5) would be interesting to contemplate, but it's not likely to come to be on this plane of existence.

The Founding Fathers were clearly enlightened men, although I know they weren't perfect by any means. By comparison however, we already know what various THEOCRACIES have led to. And the question of autonomy exercised within people's lives, is always a valid and significant one.

Something theocratic looks great to the person, who THINKS their core values and beliefs will be those instituted under the law. But what happens to that person's attitude, when their "right" to practice or believe is literally removed from society? And if extremists have their way, I think the backlash of that extremism will almost certainly lead to the unthinkable thing I have jsut described above.

Another reasonable truth that I can gleen from the Bible is this: The power of God is not made manifest in the will and actions of men, but in the faith of those who are willing to let God be God. People who are out here scrambling to gain power and influence, are kind of like a cosmic joke; Jesus already took care of everything concerning sin, yet we have certain religious people out here seeking to control believers and unbelievers, using the same unloving and oppressive schemes that history has shown DO NOT really work (at best, only temporarily).

It's not worth comparing the Bible to the U.S. Constitution; both are interpreted documents, and both provide guidelines in important areas of our existence. Only a very foolish person believes that they have the absolute "perfect" interpretation of any writings so evidently well-grounded in wisdom and profound thought.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
The Constitution is literally worshipped by atheists and yet, it is only writings by men. Traitorous old world men at that. Thomas Paine the most highlighted and misguided of them all, but of course T. Jefferson close on his heels.

I really wouldn't compare the Bible to the U.S. Constitution; that's apples/oranges.

Mel, the conglomerate (atheists, secularists, progressives blah blah blah) of anti-Christians use the Constitution as an absolute. C'mon now. America isn't even special on the worlds stage of history. It is just an experiment thrust onto the world by guns and violence by pouty traitors and wackos.

Look at the fruit of that "enlightened" labor.

And do you think that certain atheists cannot use the Bible against Christians as well?

They prove God more and more with every pitiless ego feeding perspective. I do not trust them as individuals but I do think taht there skepticism is driving the world to a Holier Jesus with every hysterical attack. "Who made God?" That is it. Somehow, when I look at a tree or anything else in the universe that question fades away like the babale of a drunk exiting a bar. My only concern is for innocent victims and in the same way.

Is there anything that we can grasp, which transcends the typical arguments we all know so well?

How? The actions inherent in anti-God beliefs is easy to mistrust. I do believe in "secular" rules for which to hold people apart and living their lives freely but the intolerance is not coming from those that live Godly lives. It is coming from those forcing their actions on others. Namely, wanting to indocrinate children with noone questioning the anti-God view. Man, that is proveable.

I think Jesus provided that, and because of the dust clouds surrounding all the fussing (picture the dust-ball when characters are fighting in cartoons) , people MISS the most important point/value that Jesus propagated (love...John 3:16).

As can been seen like bobbleheads on dash board, the vast opinions of Jesus, from those that oppose Christians, is that Jesus never existed OR . . . something extremel foul or denigrating. No respect and no diversity shown to Christians. While of course the Christians are feeding the worlds starving, the secularists are legislatingf more restrictions on Christians.

One significant truth is:

The form and function of our Constitution reflects more wisdom than the mere opinions of people holding to the extreme views of the present day.

You must not have ever read the writings of our "founding fathers." Jefferson and Paine were wackos. Brilliant but wierd. There is little wisdom in the Constitution that was not plagerized from Christianity.

It in fact protects those who post here, AND also provides the overall forum for the exchange of ideas throughout our nation.

The Constitution is used to protect people NOW, that would have been hanged by even, the founders. Porno and pedophiles, and the World Workers Party find comfort and freedom in the expreriment hanging in Philly. The Constitution needs an update on its morality.

We may disagree with certain rulings made, and liberties granted under the U.S. Constitution, but it lays some of the best ground rules for allowing human beings to basically get along in a single civilization ever known to man.

America is not even 250 years old. And it is dying. It is nothing special. Please read some history.

Even so, just like the "Bible", it is no magic-bullet that can effortlessly resolve man's problems.

Well we part ways big time here my Christian brother.

Still, I believe it is a higher and more useful standard, than mankind's lower nature. It isn't about "faith" per se, but it allows for the free practice of the same. That's hard to beat, and likely NO PURELY RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT would regard individual free will to such a significant degree, as the U.S. Constitution afford the average person.

All of the goodness in whatever the Constitution is comes from Gospel enlightenment.

The Founding Fathers were clearly enlightened men, although I know they weren't perfect by any means.

Perfect? They were traitors and terrorists were they not? They founded a country on the bodies of dead Britains. And many of them mangled the enlightenment thinking. Read John Locke and then think atheism.

By comparison however, we already know what various THEOCRACIES have led to.

We do? Catholics, Muslims and the Church of England? Three, is not exactly a great amount of evidence for even a clinical trial. Well I guess Japan was a Theocracy too huh? Oops. Please compare athiet rulers to the list of big time failures in running societies. Please. Truth shouldn't be avoided.

And the question of autonomy exercised within people's lives, is always a valid and significant one.

That's what Jesus said!

Something theocratic looks great to the person, who THINKS their core values and beliefs will be those instituted under the law. But what happens to that person's attitude, when their "right" to practice or believe is literally removed from society?

Like Christians in China and Islamic countries today? Or what Christians face in Europe and America?

And if extremists have their way, I think the backlash of that extremism will almost certainly lead to the unthinkable thing I have jsut described above.

When the homosexual (LGBT) agenda literally comes home to the millions of immigrants we look the other way to let into America and when other "live and let live" folks see what Liberal-Progressivism is really doing to THEIR children, there will be a backlash of Revolutionary proportions. I have certainly awoken from my couch potatoe lifestyle.

Another reasonable truth that I can gleen from the Bible is this: The power of God is not made manifest in the will and actions of men, but in the faith of those who are willing to let God be God. People who are out here scrambling to gain power and influence, are kind of like a cosmic joke; Jesus already took care of everything concerning sin, yet we have certain religious people out here seeking to control believers and unbelievers, using the same unloving and oppressive schemes that history has shown DO NOT really work (at best, only temporarily).

Umm, forgetting about Satan? It's interesting that atheists don't believe in God but Satan does. But that above paragraph contains very accurate stuff. I agree with it. Especially the stuff I put in bold.

It's not worth comparing the Bible to the U.S. Constitution;

The Bible is worth something. The Constitution is just pure egotism. "Common sense" is really needed to be applied to the Constitution, which of course can never happen in America.

. . . both are interpreted documents, and both provide guidelines in important areas of our existence. Only a very foolish person believes that they have the absolute "perfect" interpretation of any writings so evidently well-grounded in wisdom and profound thought.

The second amendment speaks volumes huh?

And . . .

Only a (very) foolish person believes in his heart that there is no God. Even the deists that wrote most of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution would agree with that. But, the hatred that men like Jefferson and Paine had for Christ has had a poisonous effect on this country.

[melikio]

The Constitution is just pure egotism.

Al, in your views/words I sense:

Anti-American, anti-gay and just about anti-anything that tends to bring people together as human beings.

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.

Even so, I think the Constitution is doing you more good, than you are willing to admit. The freedoms you exercise right here on this website, stem from the very document you hold such great contempt for. In fact, there are certainly nations that would likely hunt down and punish people for the kinds of things that were said on the many fora I've visited.

Finally Al, if I had to choose between two sets of ideas/values, one being yours and the other being the U.S. Constitution itself, I would take the Constitution (more quickly than the choice might be presented).

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

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).

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

Later man,

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

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.

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

I present a different side of the issue Mel.

Geeeeez man.

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.

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.

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

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

[melikio]

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.

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. There IS more than one way to look at all of this, I got that message many years ago; how about YOU? 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. You aren't "right" about everything. Consider that "diversity" that you are trying to instruct me in, please.

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

Great, keep it up.

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. 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).

Geeeeez man.

Indeed.

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.

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

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

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

Peace,

-Mel-