your work seems to be the detritus of a polluted mind. That you would even write such bigoted ridiculous shit is telling. it does not surprise me that you use the pop psychology term of the last decade to describe a man who preached love and kindness. you seem to suffer the disease of many who oppressed by Jesus. Perhaps you do not realize that even without Jesus your conscience would be telling you the same thing. Its not jesus causing you pain... Jesus is trying to show you the way out. your call also echoes is the now familiar call from all those who have paid their therapist for hours and hours of work. The non payer is always a the problem... and the more righteous the non paying person is, the more likely he or she will be called the Narcissist. I had witnessed this as someone who dealt with many couples going through divorce and short sale or foreclosure. The cry of narcissist was almost always heard from one or the other. (Not all divorcing people are like that but the ones losing houses were very frequently.) I asked a smart friend of mine (hiding out as a tennis pro with anxiety) who has been to a ton of shrinks during his life. He told me in therapy the one who wins is always the one who pays and the loser (the non payer) is almost always an oppressive narcissist.
Here is another important, imo, point I would like to clarify. 1. Can we talk about something that may not been proved its existence we are able to see/find? Something like that are called God, Sage, etc. In Stoicism, sage is merely a model, this sage or wise man is hardly found, or never be found. Even the gurus or founding fathers in Stoicism would never claim they were sages, by saying that "I am not a sage". A Stoic could have made mistakes or wrong decisions anytime, that might be knowingly or unknowingly to the Stoic. (S)he knew that (s)he is not perfect. Stoics may not know any proven existence of sage, however they allow the model of sage exists. Recognising there is a possibility that sage exists somewhere they have not met/found yet. Or even a possibility that sage may never exist. They build the sage model, and they improve the sage model. They talk about sage model and discuss about the sage model. 2. The construct of God can be similar. (Gravity or certer of mass is also a construct we need to operationally defined) A God model can be built by merging/combining all the Universe + Nature + Reason/ Rational Principle + Logic + Cosmos + Natural Mystery to be explained + Logos/Words + General Law/ Principle of the Universe + Creation/ Evolution + All Things known and unknown + UFOs + Zeus/gods + Intelligence + Fate/ Systemic Causality + Some new concepts to be defined + Something people would never know/understand the existence + etc + etc., together. All-in-One! Operationally, there is God, as described above for its existence. The model of God can exist. We are part of God. Everyone is part of God. Ever thing is part of God. Just good fun! LOL An object's center of mass is certainly a real thing, but it is a construct (not another object) Diseases like Leukemia are important explanatory concepts, but do not 'exist' in the same way as a rock or a pencil
That would have been impossible. But we are not talking about Paul, remember. We are discussing Christ's Trump-like narcissism, only in Jesus Christ it's worse than in Trump, if that's possible.
I would think the problem for your proposed research department would be lack of anything to study! Atheism denotes the absence of something, viz., the absence of a belief in a god or deity. It should be difficult to study the non-existent. Nevertheless, clerics for two millennia have accomplished the seemingly impossible by insisting on studying the non-existent. Of course atheists sometimes express the view that believers are nuts, but that's not atheism. I am trying to figure out how the question of whether the Christ described in the Bible exhibited symptoms of extreme narcissism could be a matter of whether one was a believer or an atheist. I am having trouble figuring that one out. Off hand, I don't see how that could be a factor if one insists on being rational. I suppose the devout might say it's impossible for God to have a defective personality and therefore it's impossible for Christ to be a narcissist despite the Bibles description. In other words, when Christ of the Bible acts like a narcissistic horses ass, he is not acting like a narcissistic horses ass at all, because he is actually God masquerading as a Homo sapiens! This is the kind of argument Richard Nixon used when he said "When the President does it, it's not illegal". This is the equivalent of a "preemptive pardon". A Narcissist like Trump would surely try that if he thought he could pull it off. Hell, Trump might try it anyway! It seems to me that whether there ever was, or wasn't, a Jesus Christ makes no difference when it comes to the question of whether the Christ described in the Bible exhibited extreme narcissism. It would seem there can be no question about that. All one has to do is read the New Testament to become convinced. I would be delighted to see someone post a rational counter argument, i.e., arguments other than one in the nature of the irrational argument I've offered above. I've not seen that yet. Instead all that's been offered are sidetracks, or invective hurled at the messenger, a specialty it seems of one of our thread participants. I am almost ready to conclude there aren't any rational counter arguments, and that I may be more correct than I had originally thought. That would be a first!
see also my most recent reply, immediately above, to Odd Trader's post. By the way, I'm still waiting for that counter argument.
Obviously you are too intelligent to put too many topics/ issues in just one post that would require too much time to re-post what I already mentioned before in several other ET threads that you may easily find. Many people have been brain-washed by the conventions of an outdated holy book in a certain faith. Even worse is to use many man made theological concepts/terms to interpret their own questions in order to clarify some/many confusing issues/concepts. It would take time to digest something completely new against previously learned that already built-in into one's brain for too long time. Posting one question about how to make consistently profitable trading on ET while expecting/ wanting to get all answers is not easy, if not impossible. But I haven't seen any one thing close yet. Good luck to your journey, my friend! Unlearn the old then relearn the new possibly the best way, as something similar that Jesus once said. Jesus' theory was/is meant to set souls/minds free (liberty) - keeping oneself away from the old stuff! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_Roof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_Roof_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm The book below is useful.
https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...re-the-words-of-jesus-and-moses.157885/page-4 Was Paul truly a real disciple of Jesus? Strictly speaking, No, he was not. 1. What did he learn directly from Jesus. No, nothing, no chance, since he himself had never met Jesus physically. Jesus got many followers to learn his theory, but noly some were disciples who were even living and eating close to Jesus. Other followers/learners may live far away. 2. Disciples learn not from letters. They read the person life and they learn from the person's spoken words that the same words can have different meaning for different situations/contexts, subject to interpretation. Disciples therefore understand they cannot use the same words and principles for all disregarding situations/contexts. Otherwise, wrong decisions/applications. That could be one of the main reasons Jesus did not write down anything in order to avoid misleading interpretations. 3. Example: Real/historical Jesus: If you hungry and weak or sick then you're blessed, please come to me as I will feed you what I have got to offer. After you get well, you may go home and don't tell anyone! Since I myself usually don't have much (space or food) to offer yet. Theological/canonised Jesus: If you are weak (and/or hungry) then you can't share the bread with us, go home for reflections of your sin until you get well (you should know/learn how and by what from somewhere else as I don't want to tell you now). My place is mainly for healthy and wealthy people who then are allowed to stay for bread and worship. https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...oth-christian-republican.311988/#post-4497994 4. Another example Original sin derived from Adam, according to St Paul? The fact showed below: Jesus didn't think so! Just as any independent/systems thinker do.
The Roots of Narcissism https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201701/the-roots-narcissism
5. Another Example Canonised Jesus, according to Paul: God is limited/dictated/defined by the holy book written by Man called St Paul. God cannot do anything the holy book does not allow Him (i.e. God) to do. The holy book hence is greater, of higher power and authority, and smarter than God, because the author/a-Man is more intelligent and having better all-rounded knowledge than God. The holy book is easy to read/learn and never change. God doing anything beyond the holy book's written contents is problematic, and should be abolished. The holy book is above man-made laws. Any argument or legal battle requiring lawyers to be judged in court is usually affordable mainly to selected people. This God, although smaller/inferior than the holy book, however, is great, still great for daily praise! This God is separated from Man far away while staying in the heaven where one day only believers can go, perhaps God's unconditional grace preached weekly is only conditionally for believers and loves only believers. Is this great? People learn to know how smart/wise the holy book is! The universe/nature people daily live is just insignificantly smaller than God therefore the nature environment is not that important at all. What people should care and only care is specified all in the holy book, not God's creatures in the nature. VS Historical Jesus, according to http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm: God is everything and all things in the universe/nature. God/universe/nature and Man is one. Love/rationality is the law. There is only one law, the law of nature/universe. People learn from the nature/universe. No any other written law is greater or needed. God/universe/nature is for everyone equally. God is with us every moment. God and Man is one. Man simply lives in the universe/nature/God. Science is an effective way/investigation for methodically understand more about God/universe/nature. Man knows how small/unwise we are, when comparing to God/Universe/Nature. Man learns from the nature how to care the nature and all creatures - even without learning anything from any book, such as this dog below. LOL Published on Jul 19, 2017 " Brave Dog Saves Baby Deer From Drowning | This very brave dog saved a baby deer from drowning — but then she jumped back in and someone else had to rescue her!"
I've read your interesting posts and you gave a number of informative links. You have offered some hypotheses for which there may be, or may not be, a modicum of evidence, beyond mere theological conjecture, that there was a real historical Jesus who actually said only some small, approximately one-fifth, of the things the Biblical Jesus is recounted as having said. Thus the picture the New Testament paints of an extremely narcissistic Jesus, and a rather horrible person judged by modern standards, may be very unreliable. I except fully that that may be the case, though I tend to think that if there was a real Jesus, for which the evidence is considerably weaker then the devout generally acknowledge, our knowledge of such is quite sketchy, unless of course we are prepared to take the Bible, on faith, as an accurate account. I thank you for pointing out that it's possible that the Biblical account is very inaccurate. The thread I started, somewhat tongue in cheek, is only concerned with the Jesus of the New Testament. That Jesus exhibited pathological narcissism quite similar to Donald Trump's narcissism. Therefore, I hypothesized that many of the super natural miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible may have had their origin largely in pathological lies told by the Biblical Jesus. Of course, if there was no Biblical Jesus Christ, but instead another Christ only very poorly described in the New Testament, then the narcissistic character in the New Testament might simply be the result of clerics' or religion promoters' imaginations. That wouldn't, I would think, necessarily rule out narcissism and pathological lying as being a contributor to the, under those circumstances, "fake news" of the New Testament. But it wouldn't rule it in either. I suppose the New Testament account could be the sincere work of honest , truthful, well-meaning, and mentally sound clerics who were under the misconception that Christ was an asshole, and therefore described him as such.