Narcissism and theology (CC)

[Tanaqui]

 I swear I am not baiting you but you keep saying things in a way that brings up new questions for me. Again, don't feel like you have to answer...but can we even fight entropy ?

 

Not unless you're a wizard....

 

But I really digress.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yeah, but we're God's children, right ? That's kind of different to a novel. I wouldn't go around deliberately introducing suffering to my children's lives just so they can have the joy of conquering it..

 

Suffering as random and lacking in ultimate meaning doesn't undo me personally. It used to. Accepting it as simply existing was kind of liberating for me.

 

It's interesting how different people resolve the same questions differently.

This is reflective of an area where there is considerable speculation and uncertainty and so I would say that there are a number of valid ways to rationalize it even within Christianity, but it might be a little bit unclear.  And I'm good with that.

[Carol in Cal.]

Where narcissistic parenting begins:

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/until-i-had-kids-i-never-thought-i-could-love-some-50466

[Rosie_0801]

Where narcissistic parenting begins:

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/until-i-had-kids-i-never-thought-i-could-love-some-50466

 

Why do you think that?

[Carol in Cal.]

Why do you think that?

It's The Onion, Rosie.  It's a satirical online magazine.  I was just kidding around.  Did you notice how it sort of parodied typical articles where someone says, "For the first time I learned what it is to love someone more than myself!" by essentially saying, "For the first time I learned what it is to love someone OTHER than myself!"?  It reminded me of the earlier post in this same thread that talked about relatives being an extension of a narcissist.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[gardenmom5]

Yeah, but we're God's children, right ? That's kind of different to a novel. I wouldn't go around deliberately introducing suffering to my children's lives just so they can have the joy of conquering it..

 

Suffering as random and lacking in ultimate meaning doesn't undo me personally. It used to. Accepting it as simply existing was kind of liberating for me.

 

It's interesting how different people resolve the same questions differently.

 

you're assuming God 'causes" human suffering (or that religious people believe that) - as opposed to it being random as part of mortality.  do you make everything easy for your kids? surround them with cushions so they never get hurt?  do they have subjects that are hard for them - that you try to help them with, but are still hard FOR THEM becasue they struggle to master a concept? or dealing with jerky peers? or a toddler who is learning to walk, or an older child to ride a bike.  they fall down, sometimes even end up bloody (or broken bones - or worse), because sometimes - carp happens.

 

we know that they learn to walk - by stumbling and gaining strength and master being able to walk.  we help our children grow and progress when they struggle to learn, just as I have felt God helping me when I have struggled with something.

 

I probably haven't explained my thoughts well, but I also need to head to bed . . and I have other's demanding my time.  even at this hour.

Edited January 10, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Rosie_0801]

It's The Onion, Rosie.  It's a satirical online magazine.  I was just kidding around.  Did you notice how it sort of parodied typical articles where someone says, "For the first time I learned what it is to love someone more than myself!" by essentially saying, "For the first time I learned what it is to love someone OTHER than myself!"?  It reminded me of the earlier post in this same thread that talked about relatives being an extension of a narcissist.

 

Ja, I could see it was the Onion, I just wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

(I'm going to be inclined to over think an article like that.)

[Rosie_0801]

you're assuming God 'causes" human suffering - as opposed to it being random as part of mortality.  do you make everything easy for your kids? surround them with cushions so they never get hurt?  do they have subjects that are hard for them - that you try to help them with, but are still hard FOR THEM becasue they struggle to master a concept? or dealing with jerky peers? or a toddler who is learning to walk, or an older child to ride a bike.  they fall down, sometimes even end up bloody (or broken bones - or worse), because sometimes - carp happens.

 

we know that they learn to walk - by stumbling and gaining strength and master being able to walk.  we help our children grow and progress when they struggle to learn, just as I have felt God helping me when I have struggled with something.

 

I probably haven't explained my thoughts well, but I also need to head to bed . . and I have other's demanding my time.  even at this hour.

 

We have examples of that in the Bible.

[Carol in Cal.]

Ja, I could see it was the Onion, I just wasn't sure what point you were making.

 

(I'm going to be inclined to over think an article like that.)

No point, really, just kidding around.  I thought the article was killingly funny.

[gardenmom5]

I just wanted to add - it's my daughter's bd on sunday- so I've no idea if I'll be around before later in the evening.

[livetoread]

The concept of a fallen world is where I think YEC/YLC and evolution crash into each other, and it comes down to the problem of evil.

 

YEC/YLC says God created a world different from what we live in now (how different varies) and the reason kids get cancer and animals kill each other in horrific ways is because Adam and Eve sinned. Cancer and suffering would not have happened without their sin because they are not God's intent. The world is "fallen" from a much better state - a state some say was like heaven - because humans messed up.

 

Death and suffering before humans arrived means that humans did not cause a fallen world; the world was created already a mess with suffering and death a feature of the program, not a bug. T-Rex's ripped other dinosaurs apart in painful ways for millions of years because that's how God made them. Humans were created through evolution to be violent and selfish and to sometimes have personality disorders, as well as to be cooperative and kind and mentally healthy. There is no "fallen" because everything was created this way. That doesn't mean humans can't do better, but I can't understand how one can refer to a "fallen" world like it was something better before, when it wasn't.

 

If one believes that a Christian-ish God created things (personally, I don't), and if one accepts what science tells us about life before we showed up, then I think one is hard-pressed to argue that kids getting cancer and personality disorders are not God's intention. God could have created a world without suffering and death just like heaven and just like he says he will do in the future. Many YEC/YLCists say he did and argue that the Bible supports that view. But science tells us something different, that if the world was created, it was created to be a mess long before humans arrived.

 

So whose fault is it that all creation groans?

Edited January 10, 2016 by livetoread

[ktgrok]

Eh? Thistles weren't in the Garden of Eden? That seems a shame, really. They have magnificent flowers. Some are edible and the sap of some can be used to coagulate milk for cheese making.

 

 

Um. Well. I'll stop there because there's no use in my protesting that thistles should be allowed in the Garden of Eden. :leaving:

 

My understanding is that they would have been there, but not prickly. Kind of like there were lions and lambs, but before the fall lions didn't eat other creatures, they ate plants. So maybe before the fall viruses didn't cause harm, etc. 

[Tanaqui]

Kind of like there were lions and lambs, but before the fall lions didn't eat other creatures, they ate plants.

 

But their teeth are shaped to rip and tear flesh. Their digestive system is formed in such a way that they are obligate carnivores, not herbivores. If they ate plants, they wouldn't be lions, they'd be some other species.

 

[Pawz4me]

But their teeth are shaped to rip and tear flesh. Their digestive system is formed in such a way that they are obligate carnivores, not herbivores. If they ate plants, they wouldn't be lions, they'd be some other species.

 

Not to mention that taurine is an essential amino acid for cats, and it's only available from meat.  Without an adequate amount of taurine in their diet cats develop cardiomyopathy and other health issues and have short life spans.  For optimum health they also need various other amino acids that are obtained from meat.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Pawz4me

[ktgrok]

Ya'll, if we are assuming that God can create the planet, all life on earth, etc, I think we can also safely assume that God can keep a cat healthy without meat. Either cats didn't need taurine then, or plants made taurine then, or kibble fell from the sky like manna or cats were different and not quite cats. I don't know. Honestly, not one of the top ten questions in theology I spend much time on :)

[Tanaqui]

Sure. But why would God design an animal (or, rather, lots and lots of different animals) with teeth that are only useful for eating meat if that's not in his current plan?

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. What about the guinea worm? If we're postulating design, then it was clearly designed to do one thing and one thing only - burrow out of a living person in a painful way. Did God make it after the fall? Or did he make it before and hold it in reserve in case he woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day?

 

What about chili peppers? They're full of something hot and burny! But some humans think they're yummy. Not so much most other mammals. Pre-fall or post?

Edited January 10, 2016 by Tanaqui

[albeto.]

Albeto, if you can't follow and accurately summarize what others have said here, you're not going to be able to understand what I say either.  And you're really smart, so I think if you just slowed down and read what has been written already and thought about it you would understand it and you wouldn't have those specific questions.  I don't really see how I can be any clearer than anyone else has been.

 

Interesting response. Again, a refusal to answer the question. 8cicrles answers it, but perhaps not in the way you would. I find that really interesting as well. On the one hand, if there is evidence, I'd think a xian would be thrilled to have the opportunity to share it. Your answer continues to be evasive and ultimately dismissive, and from my perspective, it seems willfully so. Additionally, no other xian is coming to help you answer it. It would appear that evidence is really important to you, but not to all xians (if we can agree 8circles is a "Real Xian"). It's interesting to me to see such a focus on evidence, but when asked directly, there is none. So before we even explore the so-called evidence, the reality is xians are divided on the issue - evidence exists / evidence is important. So from the very outset, we don't know if xianity as a religion even professes that there is evidence for this "fall." 

 

Your idea that disease, death, and misery illustrate a "fallenness" is curious as well. Disease is a function of chemistry, so again, our 5th grade science experiment ought to be able to suss this out. Death is an awkward illustration as well, considering death leads to entomological, bacterial, and chemical activities that change an organic thing into nutrients for more organic things. Imagine if there were no death, there would be no eating (which means no pooping, which means either Adam and Eve didn't poop, or their bodies were suddenly and violently changed to incorporate an entire digestive system - which makes it odd that a piece of fruit would be tempting), the earth would be super saturated with biological life so quickly that vegetation and animals, birds, fish, insects would be some hundreds of feet deep by now, crawling over each other. Unless birth would also be suddenly inoperative once the creator god determined the earth was populous enough. So perhaps he would have been more inspired to pay attention and help out humanity if Eve never ate that first fruit, thus bringing upon us this "fall." 

 

But of course this is all speculation, not evidence. There's way one can isolate "fallen" from "not fallen," even though most people living on this earth are alive and have significant parts of their body that are not diseased. The kind of comfort JodiSue takes from this belief is no more evidence for this claim than a mulsim taking comfort from islam is evidence the claims from her religious texts are credible. Surely you wouldn't allow "It brings me comfort to believe mohammed flew to heaven on a magic horse, and back again" to stand as evidence that the greatest responsibility and privilege for mankind is to submit to allah, as revealed in the q'uran. Surely you wouldn't allow "It brings me comfort to believe I can be rid of these thetans who invade my life" to stand as evidence that thetans really did come to earth some umpteen billions of years ago in a modified 747, froze in the middle of a volcano, thawed out, and continue to plague us with illusions of being human and not gods. But it is expected to stand for the xian religious belief. Can you see the double standard in this expectation?

[Carol in Cal.]

Your characterizations of my supposed views are erroneous.  And you still haven't come to the terms with the substance of what you have ALREADY BEEN TOLD in this thread on any level.  This makes it feel like you're not communicating in good faith, and does not bode well for the likelihood of successfully reaching even an agreement to disagree, since that is based on mutual understanding.  I really don't see anywhere to go from here except around and around, and that doesn't seem like a good use of either of our time.

[albeto.]

:)  :)  :)

 

Here you go, trees not falling on people's heads and lots of animals, lovely indeed.

 

I know I'm not contributing much here, but I appreciate you all having such an interesting discussion while I'm up with medication-induced insomnia.

 

Nevermind. 

 

:)

Edited January 11, 2016 by albeto.

[EmseB]

(can't quote for some reason, replying to post 233)

 

I think this is the crux of the circles, albeto:  you will not even entertain the premise of anything spiritual. Which is fine as far as it goes, except if you're discussing spiritual matters with people and cannot even acknowledge where they are coming from in discussion, and view them and/or their beliefs with contempt, then there is no way to have a discussion.  It just can't happen.

 

Previously in the thread I stated that spiritually I believe mental illness is caused by a general fallen world as a result of sin (based on what I read in the Bible), and we see this manifested (in this specific discussion) as a chemical imbalance in the brain.  You quoted me, cut off the part where I acknowledged the biological cause of mental illness, and then went on for a few paragraphs about demons and exorcism, something that was a complete non sequitur.  I never once mentioned demons, I never once discussed exorcising anything, and I acknowledged the biological cause of mental illness (and had previously acknowledge a medical solution).  You completely ignored my entire point and yet posted a lengthy, patronizing reply that had little to do with what I wrote.  That is just one example of the "circles" I complained about earlier, but it's more like the gish gallop, except from an atheist.

 

I have, and others have, repeatedly in this thread acknowledged the science behind mental illness and also discussed it as a result of the fall in Genesis.  You refuse to even acknowledge that theology and philosophy might somehow be applied as relevant.  Okay, so there's not a lot left to discuss in that realm.  However, you either have received very poor instruction in doctrines of (various) faith traditions or deliberately misrepresent them so they are impossible to discuss with any kind of meaning anyway, so when you do attempt to characterize what people are saying with regard to those ideas it is usually a misrepresentation.

 

And then, when it comes to someone wanting to agree to disagree or walk away from the thread (because it doesn't seem to be profitable or going anywhere because of the above communication issues) you levy accusations or continue to bait (see? it's working!).  I mean, it's a message board and people drop in and out as are able, and things go in different directions, and sometimes someone wants to agree to disagree and let things lie.  But instead of taking this graciously, there's an almost petulant demand to continue the discussion or a need accuse people who have replied to you (multiple times, with the same answers) of refusing to answer your questions.

 

And then when I see the discussion Sadie and everyone had last night about a particular doctrine, where I am under no illusion that Sadie has any love for my beliefs or what I've said, and yet the discussion itself is amicable and friendly as far as those things go...the difference is striking.

 

But usually, in the actual thread or elsewhere on the forum you end up claiming some kind of persecution complex about how people just dislike you because you ask tough questions that frustrate them and, just like this, the thread ends up being about albeto.  And it's because we all want to pick on you (or something). It's honestly a baffling phenomenon to me, but the nearest way I can think to describe it is a very subtle form of gaslighting.  The pattern happens over and over again, with you as the center of the "controversy" and yet it's because we who enter into these conversations all have some sort of deficiency in the discussion.

 

But, here I am participating again, so what do I know?

Edited January 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[albeto.]

Ya'll, if we are assuming that God can create the planet, all life on earth, etc, I think we can also safely assume that God can keep a cat healthy without meat. Either cats didn't need taurine then, or plants made taurine then, or kibble fell from the sky like manna or cats were different and not quite cats. I don't know. Honestly, not one of the top ten questions in theology I spend much time on :)

 

This response dismisses the point of the example. The example shows the implausibility of such a claim, and the problems with the idea when looked at in detail. By this logic, if we are assuming a god can create the planet, all life on earth, etc, it can create one where suffering isn't necessary for humans (and cognizant animals in general) to recognize good experiences and appreciate the goodness therein. 

[Mommy22alyns]

Just shaking my head...

[albeto.]

Your characterizations of my supposed views are erroneous.  And you still haven't come to the terms with the substance of what you have ALREADY BEEN TOLD in this thread on any level.  This makes it feel like you're not communicating in good faith, and does not bode well for the likelihood of successfully reaching even an agreement to disagree, since that is based on mutual understanding.  I really don't see anywhere to go from here except around and around, and that doesn't seem like a good use of either of our time.

 

Again you're refusing to answer my question. I'm asking for evidence for three things. You keep repeating that evidence has been provided in this thread and yet you refuse to link to this provision. I can only conclude they're not really there, or else you're reading something into certain comments that I'm not, but you won't share with me how. No one else will answer these questions either, which is interesting. Ask a biologist what the evidence for a cat's carnivorous digestive system and it will be forthcoming. Without hesitation. Without reprimand. I noticed you ignored the other parts of my post as well, which is of course your option, but the conclusions from such refusal is interesting. It's a pattern of behavior that implies an intent to avoid what must feel like a confrontation. I mean no confrontation, just an answer to my question.

 

I do think it's a good use of time. For me, it's valuable to articulate the doubts and problems in a belief system that is taken for granted to be true and accurate, inspiring unjustified privilege in my community and society and in the world at large. If I'm just a tiny voice of dissent, a proverbial mosquito buzzing around and annoying people, still someone hears what I am saying and thinks, "Yeah, good question. I wonder, too." This is a good thing. It's part of critical thinking skills to recognize reasonable and rational answers to appropriate questions, as opposed to logical fallacies. Furthermore, these questions are not only appropriate in general, they are directly related to the OP's question. For a xian, I imagine it's a good opportunity to be always prepared with an answer to your faith, and also it's the opportunity for iron to sharpen iron. If one believes a thing and is willing to stake their lifestyle and the lifestyle of their children on it, teach their children to embrace it, and vote for public policy that is inspired by it, it's not unreasonable to expect an explanation for it. That's just my opinion as to why it might be valuable for a xian, though, which admittedly I'm not. I don't mean to speak for anyone when I say that.

 

I recognize you and I aren't getting anywhere. I'd be interested in the answer to my questions from anyone. 

 

ETA: Never mind about the answers. 

Edited January 11, 2016 by albeto.

[Carol in Cal.]

Again you're refusing to answer my question. I'm asking for evidence for three things. You keep repeating that evidence has been provided in this thread and yet you refuse to link to this provision.

 

Nope, I have not said that.

 

What I do say is that your questions have been answered, that you have failed to truly engage with those answers to the point of understanding them, as evidenced by your continuing to misrepresent those who have answered, and your failure to do so seems indicative that there is no point in trying to answer you because you are not willing to try to truly understand those answers.  I have asked you repeatedly to go back and reread and think about the answers you have gotten, and you continue to ignore that.  (Please note that I said, 'understand', not 'agree with'.)  Then you accuse others of ignoring your questions.  That's ridiculous.  You've been replied to at length, repeatedly, and disregarded and/or misrepresented those replies, until, as often happens, one by one people say, OK enough of this.

 

You seem to be baiting a number of posters to try to get them to say things that you can use as a jumping off point for lectures that are not really all that related to what they have actually said.  It kind of reminds me of politicians who will take any question and give a pre-canned speech that doesn't actually answer the question, but that they want to put out there.  There is no mutuality in that, so what's the point of participating?  

Edited January 11, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Heidi]

Life is full of choices. Here is one of my better ones:

 

"This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by albeto.."

 

Go, and do thou likewise.

[albeto.]

(can't quote for some reason, replying to post 233)

 

I think this is the crux of the circles, albeto:  you will not even entertain the premise of anything spiritual. Which is fine as far as it goes, except if you're discussing spiritual matters with people and cannot even acknowledge where they are coming from in discussion, and view them and/or their beliefs with contempt, then there is no way to have a discussion.  It just can't happen.

.

.

.

.

[snipping much of this post for brevity, not as a trick]

 

I think the confusion lies in the fact that I am willing to entertain the premise of something spiritual for the sake of the topic, but when asked a question about *how* it works, I am admonished. Apparently I'm supposed to accept the claims of believers on their say-so. When I pointed out the double standard of that, it was ignored. I can appreciate your frustration, but can you appreciate mine? Do you realize how often this very scenario is being played out in all kinds of places? I'm asking a logical question and am being accused of ill-intent. I find that bizarre on a forum where people have taken the responsibility of education seriously, and yet refuse to engage in a discussion when a belief isn't simply accepted as true. I wonder if you can see the irony of this the way I do. 

 

As a personal aside, this kind of dismissal was instrumental in my deconversion. Honest questions were ultimately answered with reprimands and reminders to be polite [read as, "be quiet" and "respect my religious beliefs"]. My questions are still honest, and I still find it inappropriate for such a community to throw out unsubstantiated claims - regardless of what they are, religious or not - and then get defensive when those claims have been challenged. Greta Christina calls this defense the, Shut up, that's why defense. Ultimately, she explains, the question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks.

 

Yes, I do recognize your comment about biology explaining mental illness, but you also claim this "fall" caused biology as we know it. That's an amazing claim to make. Is it really so unpopular a question that people don't consider the ramifications of their statements? Do people in your church, do your children never ask these questions I ask? If this "fall" explains "modern" biology, that opens up so many question, and so many problems, logical and moral. Do so few people ask these questions in your circle, or are they satisfied with the comfort, and led to conclude if the comfort is real, then the validity of the claim is of little importance?

 

You never mentioned demons, but that's the logical conclusion to a spiritual variable in the chemistry of the brain. I won't connect the dots because I suspect no one cares. Those xians who believe it know what I'm talking about, and those who don't seem awfully frustrated with the fact that one person isn't shutting up when her question is ignored. Please don't worry, I'm not asking any more. I'm trying to explain my participation here as inspired by relevant questions, not a desire to frustrate you all. 

[albeto.]

Just shaking my head...

 

You and me both.

[MercyA]

Nevermind. 

 

:)

 

I missed whatever it was, albeto, but I'm not going to ask.  ;)

[Susan Wise Bauer]

And I think we're done.