Is God A Psychopath?

[Trance Gemini]

Here is Dr. Hare's PCL (Psychopath Check List).

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
7. Callousness; lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".

1. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
2. Parasitic lifestyle
3. Poor behavioral control
4. Lack of realistic long-term goals
5. Impulsivity
6. Irresponsibility
7. Juvenile delinquency
8. Early behavior problems
9. Revocation of conditional release
10. Traits not correlated with either factor
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Many short-term marital relationships
13. Criminal versatility
14. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)

IMO, God succeeds on the following traits:

Factor 1: 1 to 8

Factor 2: 1 to 10, 12.

Agree? or Disagree? And Why?

--

"If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 26, 7:13 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is Dr. Hare's PCL (Psychopath Check List).
>

> *Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"*
>
>    1. Glibness/superficial charm
>    2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
>    3. Pathological lying
>    4. Cunning/manipulative
>    5. Lack of remorse or guilt
>    6. Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
>    7. Callousness; lack of empathy
>    8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
>
> *Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".*
>
>    1. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
>    2. Parasitic lifestyle
>    3. Poor behavioral control
>    4. Lack of realistic long-term goals
>    5. Impulsivity
>    6. Irresponsibility
>    7. Juvenile delinquency
>    8. Early behavior problems
>    9. Revocation of conditional release
>    10. Traits not correlated with either factor
>    11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
>    12. Many short-term marital relationships
>    13. Criminal versatility
>    14. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a

>    newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and
>    tricks to deceive)
>
> IMO, God succeeds on the following traits:
>

> *Factor 1: *1 to 8
> *Factor 2:* 1 to 10, 12.

>
> Agree? or Disagree? And Why?

Should we rate each trait from 0-2 and then add them up? IIRC
psychopaths are supposed to score around 30?

[Trance Gemini]

Is that how it's done? If so, sure! I defer to your expertise :-D

I should also correct my Factor 2 to:

Factor 2: 1 to 8, 12 

I don't know what they mean by 9 and 10.

And I have God 2 points on each so ....

That would be a score of: 32 and a possible 36 depending on what they mean by 9 and 10.

It's pretty hard to score over 30 but Goddidit!!!!

-- 

[Trance Gemini]

Ooops. Score Correction to 34 with a possible 38.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 26, 10:13 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is Dr. Hare's PCL (Psychopath Check List).
>

> *Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"*
>
>    1. Glibness/superficial charm
>    2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
>    3. Pathological lying
>    4. Cunning/manipulative

>    5. Lack of remorse or guilt
>    6. Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)

>    7. Callousness; lack of empathy

>    8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
>
> *Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".*
>
>    1. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom

>    2. Parasitic lifestyle
>    3. Poor behavioral control

>    4. Lack of realistic long-term goals

>    5. Impulsivity
>    6. Irresponsibility
>    7. Juvenile delinquency
>    8. Early behavior problems
>    9. Revocation of conditional release

>    10. Traits not correlated with either factor

>    11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
>    12. Many short-term marital relationships
>    13. Criminal versatility

>    14. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a

>    newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and
>    tricks to deceive)
>
> IMO, God succeeds on the following traits:
>

> *Factor 1: *1 to 8

> *Factor 2:* 1 to 10, 12.

>
> Agree? or Disagree? And Why?

As a matter of coincidence, I'm taking a class in Criminal Psychology,
and our text has a chapter on Crmiinal Psychopathy:

"Psychologist Robert Hare (1993), one of the world's leading experts
on psychopathy, describes psychopaths as 'social predators who charm,
manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a
broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty
wallets. Completely lacking on conscience and empathy, they selfishly
take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and
expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret' (p.
xi)" (Bartol & Bartol, 2011, pp. 171-172).

This Hare is the Hare of your checklist, which my book references. It
goes into some detail:

"Superficial charm and average to above-average intelligence are two
of the psychopath's main features..." (p. 174)
"Other principle traits of the psychopath are selfishness and the
inability to love or give affection to others." (p. 176)
"According to Cleckley, egocentricity is ALWAYS present in the
psychopath and is essentially unmodifiable." (p. 176)
"They may be highly skillful at pretending deep affection, and they
may effectively mimic appropriate emotions, but true loyalty, warmth,
and compassion are foreign to them." (p. 176)
"In addition they do not usually respond to acts of kindness. They
show capacity only for superficial appreciation." (p. 176)
"Psychopaths have a remarkable disregard for truth and are often
called 'pathological liars.'" (p. 176)
"Psychopaths are unreliable, irresponsible, and unpredictable,
regardless of the importance of the occasion or consequences of their
impulsive actions. Impulsivity appears to be a central or cardinal
feature of psychopathy (Hart & Dempester, 1997)" (p. 177)
"A cardinal fault of psychopaths is their absolute lack of remose or
guilt for anything they do, regardless of the severity or immorality
of their actions and irrespective of their traumatic effects on
others." (p. 177)
"Another important behavioral characteristic of psychopaths noted by
Blair, PEschardy, Budhani, Mitchel, and Pine (2006) is their EXCESSIVE
use of instrumental aggression. Instrumental aggression, as discussed
in Chapter 5, is purposeful and goal-directed aggression used to
achieve a specific goal, such as the possessions of another
person." (p. 177)

In reference to the checklist:
"Typically, highly trained examiners use all this information to score
each item on a 0-2 scale, depending on the extend to which an
individual has the disposition described by each item on the checlist
(0 = consistently absent; 1; inconsistent; 2 = consistently present).
Scoring is, however, quite complex and requires substantial time,
extensive training, and access to consirable amount of background
information on the individual." (p. 180)
"A score of 30 otr above usually qualifies a person as a primary
psychopath (Hare, 1996)." (p. 180)

Also, your #10 is not an item, but a labeling for the last four.

To restate your list, with my scorings:

*Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"*

1. Glibness/superficial charm [2]
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth [2]
3. Pathological lying [2]
4. Cunning/manipulative [2]
5. Lack of remorse or guilt [2]
6. Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
[2]
7. Callousness; lack of empathy [2]
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [2]

*Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".*

9. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom [1]
10. Parasitic lifestyle [2]
11. Poor behavioral control [2]
12. Lack of realistic long-term goals [2]
13. Impulsivity [2]
14. Irresponsibility [2]
15. Juvenile delinquency [0]
16. Early behavior problems [0]
17. Revocation of conditional release [0]

*Traits not correlated with either factor
18. Promiscuous sexual behavior [1]
19. Many short-term marital relationships [0]
20. Criminal versatility [Again, not sure what this means, 1]
21. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item

21: a
newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological
strategies and

tricks to deceive) [2]

Total Score: 31

We have a winner!

[Neil Kelsey]

X

What is the definition of "instrumental aggression"?

[Drafterman]

References (Primary):
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2011). Criminal Behavior: A
Psychological Approach.New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.

References (Seocndary):
Blair, R. J. R., Peschardt, K. S., Budhani, S., MItchell, D. G. V., &
Pine, D. S. (2006). The development of psychopathy. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 262-275.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO:
Mosby
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the
psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.
Hare, R.D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has
come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25-54.
Hart, S. D. & Dempster, R. J. (1997). Impulsivity and psychopathy. In
C.D. Webster & M.A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, asessment and
treatment. New York: Guilford.

[Drafterman]

"Instrumental aggression ... is purposeful and goal-directed

aggression used to achieve a specific goal, such as the possessions of
another person."

>
>
>

> > > Jubal Harshaw character in Stranger in a Strange Land- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

LOL! Nicely done! And thanks for the correction. You're right that was a label.

Questions below.

Yup We agree here.

 

*Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".*

  9. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom [1]

Why are you only giving a 1 here? I would argue that much of what he did was out of boredom.

 

  10. Parasitic lifestyle [2]
  11. Poor behavioral control [2]
  12. Lack of realistic long-term goals [2]
  13. Impulsivity [2]
  14. Irresponsibility [2]
  15. Juvenile delinquency [0]
  16. Early behavior problems [0]

Fair enough. We really don't know his "early" behavior. Was he ever a child god? Lol.

 

  17. Revocation of conditional release [0]

*Traits not correlated with either factor
  18. Promiscuous sexual behavior [1]

Interesting. Are we referring to Mary here?

 

  19. Many short-term marital relationships [0]
  20. Criminal versatility [Again, not sure what this means, 1]

Yes this appears to be a bit ambiguous. I'm assuming that it means that he doesn't follow a single criminal pattern like only commits fraud, or assault, etc. but instead commits all kinds of crimes?

 

  21. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item

21: a
  newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological
strategies and

  tricks to deceive) [2]

Yes I didn't understand this one but agree with the explanation.

 

Total Score: 31

We have a winner!

Yup :-D

[Drafterman]

I was on the fence, but I suppose so. He doesn't appear to have done
much directly in the New Testament, though.

>
> >   10. Parasitic lifestyle [2]
> >   11. Poor behavioral control [2]
> >   12. Lack of realistic long-term goals [2]
> >   13. Impulsivity [2]
> >   14. Irresponsibility [2]
> >   15. Juvenile delinquency [0]
> >   16. Early behavior problems [0]
>
> Fair enough. We really don't know his "early" behavior. Was he ever a child
> god? Lol.

Yeah, that was my point.

>
> >   17. Revocation of conditional release [0]
>
> > *Traits not correlated with either factor
> >   18. Promiscuous sexual behavior [1]
>
> Interesting. Are we referring to Mary here?

Yes :)

>
> >   19. Many short-term marital relationships [0]
> >   20. Criminal versatility [Again, not sure what this means, 1]
>
> Yes this appears to be a bit ambiguous. I'm assuming that it means that he
> doesn't follow a single criminal pattern like only commits fraud, or
> assault, etc. but instead commits all kinds of crimes?

Then I'd have to up it to a 2.

>
> >   21. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item
> > 21: a
> >   newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological
> > strategies and
> >    tricks to deceive) [2]
>
> Yes I didn't understand this one but agree with the explanation.
>
>
>
> > Total Score: 31
>
> > We have a winner!
>
> Yup :-D
>
> --
>
> "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
> Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>

[Observer]

I am afraid that this exercise in ascribing psychosis to a meaningless concept is non productive in that it leads not to edification and gives the false impression that the ill-conceived non-concept is in some way meaningful.

The sadomasochism, of a primitive ,pathological, misanthropic, set of false teachings where in this brand of god is manufactured starts in motion a disease of men/women not of the non concept of deity. what ever that is supposed to mean.

We confuse those who can least afford any additional , albeit playful, treatment of their meaningless, and vague, imaginary god thing, when what is most needed is direct confrontation  in juxtaposition the premises  upon which such a malevolent, inadequate , model driven reality has been manufactured, and superior models which can and do lead to accurate prognostications, enabling the advancement of manipulative scientifically verifiable  actualities towards the betterment of  and the survival of human kind. That is to say nothing of our progress from near infinite ignorance to lesser degrees thereof.

The psychosis of self imposed ignorance is a game we dare not support , lest we all pay a bitter price therefor.

Note the murderous history of ideologically disastrous belief systems throughout our time on earth thus far.

Must millions more be tortured to death, murdered by fratricidal, war, extorted by threat of force whether real or imagined , starved to death in a world of plenty,  and deprived of the educations which could cure the problems?

Please , I implore you, be direct , be strong , be militant , and continue to do the wonderful homework for which you atheists, agnostics, apatheists ,who would make the world, all deserve great credit..

If the truth won't sell it , don't sell it.

My fondest regards to all who realy care for humanity .

Dave

  

 

  

[Neil Kelsey]

I've heard *Christians* argue that God was bored (he created us
because he wanted company).

> >   10. Parasitic lifestyle [2]
> >   11. Poor behavioral control [2]
> >   12. Lack of realistic long-term goals [2]
> >   13. Impulsivity [2]
> >   14. Irresponsibility [2]
> >   15. Juvenile delinquency [0]
> >   16. Early behavior problems [0]
>
> Fair enough. We really don't know his "early" behavior. Was he ever a child
> god? Lol.
>
> >   17. Revocation of conditional release [0]
>
> > *Traits not correlated with either factor
> >   18. Promiscuous sexual behavior [1]
>
> Interesting. Are we referring to Mary here?
>
> >   19. Many short-term marital relationships [0]
> >   20. Criminal versatility [Again, not sure what this means, 1]
>
> Yes this appears to be a bit ambiguous. I'm assuming that it means that he
> doesn't follow a single criminal pattern like only commits fraud, or
> assault, etc. but instead commits all kinds of crimes?

Yes, that's right. And God should get a 3 for that one.

> >   21. Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item
> > 21: a
> >   newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological
> > strategies and
> >    tricks to deceive) [2]
>
> Yes I didn't understand this one but agree with the explanation.
>
>
>
> > Total Score: 31
>
> > We have a winner!

Good one Trance. It explains a lot about history (and current events)
that 90% of us idolize psychopathy indeity form.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

Good one Trance. It explains a lot about history (and current events)
that 90% of us idolize psychopathy indeity form.

This is exactly the point. 

Christians are: 

1. worshipping a Psychopath

2. idealizing psychopathy

3. presenting these beliefs using Orwellian Double-Speak to make them sound attractive in order to recruit others

All the while, claiming that this reflects a higher morality.

[360]

Thus creating a religion filled with psychopaths.

On Aug 26, 2:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Timbo]

On Aug 26, 4:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Good one Trance. It explains a lot about history (and current events)
> > that 90% of us idolize psychopathy indeity form.
>
> This is exactly the point.
>
> Christians are:
>
> 1. worshipping a Psychopath
> 2. idealizing psychopathy
> 3. presenting these beliefs using Orwellian Double-Speak to make them sound
> attractive in order to recruit others
>
> All the while, claiming that this reflects a higher morality.

You should say "otherwise seemingly intelligent Christians are......"
For we can understand the ignorant, not very well read Christians. For
the rest, there must be cause to accept the psychopath and oppose
their own intelligence.

[Timothy 1:4a]

And here I thought it referred to the walls of Jericho

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM, 360 <stillloo...@aol.com> wrote:

Thus creating a religion filled with psychopaths.

Or people trained in psychopathic attitudes and beliefs. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Timbo <thcu...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Aug 26, 4:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> <snipped>
>
> > Good one Trance. It explains a lot about history (and current events)
> > that 90% of us idolize psychopathy indeity form.
>
> This is exactly the point.
>
> Christians are:
>
> 1. worshipping a Psychopath
> 2. idealizing psychopathy
> 3. presenting these beliefs using Orwellian Double-Speak to make them sound
> attractive in order to recruit others
>
> All the while, claiming that this reflects a higher morality.

You should say "otherwise seemingly intelligent Christians are......"
For we can understand the ignorant, not very well read Christians. For
the rest, there must be cause to accept the psychopath and oppose
their own intelligence.

No doubt. It's called Faith.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

And here I thought it referred to the walls of Jericho

God being a psychopath? What's the connect?

[philosophy]


Criminal Versatility:
(is the reckless disregard for the safety of self or others), [2]

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:


Criminal Versatility:
(is the reckless disregard for the safety of self or others), [2]

Ah. Thank you :-D

[Trance Gemini]

Hi Obs,

While the concept isn't meaningful, it is the foundation of the belief system.

People are told to believe in a concept which has psychopathic characteristics and operates in a psychopathic way.

So, as Neil indicated Christians are taught to idealize psychopathy.

This is the problem that I'm demonstrating with this thread.

Thanks for your input.

  

 

  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/0qOmetDNBoMJ.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 27, 3:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > And here I thought it referred to the walls of Jericho
>
> God being a psychopath? What's the connect?

God supposedly toppled the walls of Jericho by using musical
instruments (horns), hence "instrumental aggression." Get it?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 27, 3:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM, 360 <stilllookatme...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Thus creating a religion filled with psychopaths.
>
> Or people trained in psychopathic attitudes and beliefs.

Agreed. It's not that anyone can be turned into a psychopath (it seems
to be a genetic trait), but most people can be trained to idolize
them. The *Christian* doctrine of forgiveness might be regarded at
least in part as a way for the real psychopaths to pave the way to get
away with their crimes (whether it be rape, thievery, murder,
genocide, etc) by duping the gullible into believing that they aren't
crimes. Ted Bundy should be roasted in Hell, but it's different when
God snuffs out hundreds of thousands in a tsuname (and a case can also
be made that God is acting through Ted Bundy anyway).

[Trance Gemini]

Haha. Got it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 27, 3:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM, 360 <stilllookatme...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Thus creating a religion filled with psychopaths.
>
> Or people trained in psychopathic attitudes and beliefs.

Agreed. It's not that anyone can be turned into a psychopath (it seems
to be a genetic trait), but most people can be trained to idolize
them. The *Christian* doctrine of forgiveness might be regarded at
least in part as a way for the real psychopaths to pave the way to get
away with their crimes (whether it be rape, thievery, murder,
genocide, etc) by duping the gullible into believing that they aren't
crimes. Ted Bundy should be roasted in Hell, but it's different when
God snuffs out hundreds of thousands in a tsuname (and a case can also
be made that God is acting through Ted Bundy anyway).

True. Very good points.

It's interesting that the only "unforgivable" or "eternal" sins are blasphemy and/or "rejecting" god.

Other than that, pretty much anything goes.

[LL]

LL. God has several personality disorders. He is a narcissist, for
one thing.

Definition
By Mayo Clinic staff
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people
have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for
admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that
they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's
feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-
esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of
personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which
people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially
distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships
and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

He is also "borderline"
Definition
By Mayo Clinic staff
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is an emotional disorder that
causes emotional instability, leading to stress and other problems.

With borderline personality disorder your image of yourself is
distorted, making you feel worthless and fundamentally flawed. Your
anger, impulsivity and frequent mood swings may push others away, even
though you desire loving relationships.

These are in addition to psycopathy.

......



On Aug 28, 2:00 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 29, 11:21 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL.  God has several personality disorders. He is a narcissist, for
> one thing.
>
> Definition
> By Mayo Clinic staff
> Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people
> have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for
> admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that
> they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's
> feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-
> esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
>
> Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of
> personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which
> people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially
> distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships
> and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.

If you look at the first category of traits for psychopathy
(Drafterman's first post in this thread) you will see that it is
called "*Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism." So narcissism
is already fundamental to the definition of psychopathy.

> He is also "borderline"
> Definition
> By Mayo Clinic staff
> Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is an emotional disorder that
> causes emotional instability, leading to stress and other problems.
>
> With borderline personality disorder your image of yourself is
> distorted, making you feel worthless and fundamentally flawed. Your
> anger, impulsivity and frequent mood swings may push others away, even
> though you desire loving relationships.

Not sure about this one. Psychopaths don't really feel much of
anything, including feeling worthless or fundamentally flawed. And I
can't think of any particular Biblical passage in which God questions
his own self-worth.

> These are in addition to psycopathy.
>

> On Aug 28, 2:00 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 27, 3:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:28 PM, 360 <stilllookatme...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > Thus creating a religion filled with psychopaths.
>
> > > > Or people trained in psychopathic attitudes and beliefs.
>
> > > Agreed. It's not that anyone can be turned into a psychopath (it seems
> > > to be a genetic trait), but most people can be trained to idolize
> > > them. The *Christian* doctrine of forgiveness might be regarded at
> > > least in part as a way for the real psychopaths to pave the way to get
> > > away with their crimes (whether it be rape, thievery, murder,
> > > genocide, etc) by duping the gullible into believing that they aren't
> > > crimes. Ted Bundy should be roasted in Hell, but it's different when
> > > God snuffs out hundreds of thousands in a tsuname (and a case can also
> > > be made that God is acting through Ted Bundy anyway).
>
> > True. Very good points.
>
> > It's interesting that the only "unforgivable" or "eternal" sins are
> > blasphemy and/or "rejecting" god.
>
> > Other than that, pretty much anything goes.
>
> > --
>
> > "If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
> > Show people." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
>

[brough, http://civilization-overview.com]

On Aug 26, 10:23 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > Should we rate each trait from 0-2 and then add them up? IIRC
> > psychopaths are supposed to score around 30?
>
> Is that how it's done? If so, sure! I defer to your expertise :-D
>
> I should also correct my Factor 2 to:
>
> Factor 2: 1 to 8, 12
>
> I don't know what they mean by 9 and 10.
>
> And I have God 2 points on each so ....
>
> That would be a score of: 32 and a possible 36 depending on what they mean
> by 9 and 10.
>
> It's pretty hard to score over 30 but Goddidit!!!!
>

[LL]

LL: Of course, we're talking about god here, so there will be
differences.

He's also schizophrenic:

Definition
By Mayo Clinic staff

Schizophrenia is a group of severe brain disorders in which people
interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some
combination of hallucinations, delusions and disordered thinking and
behavior. The ability of people with schizophrenia to function
normally and to care for themselves tends to deteriorate over time.

Contrary to some popular belief, schizophrenia isn't split personality
or multiple personality. The word "schizophrenia" does mean "split
mind," but it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions
and thinking.

Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 29, 2:39 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL: Of course, we're talking about god here, so there will be
> differences.
>
> He's also schizophrenic:
>
> Definition
> By Mayo Clinic staff
> Schizophrenia is a group of severe brain disorders in which people
> interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some
> combination of hallucinations, delusions and disordered thinking and
> behavior. The ability of people with schizophrenia to function
> normally and to care for themselves tends to deteriorate over time.
>
> Contrary to some popular belief, schizophrenia isn't split personality
> or multiple personality. The word "schizophrenia" does mean "split
> mind," but it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions
> and thinking.
>
> Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment.

Tell me about it - both of my siblings are schizophrenics.

I don't think God is though (as portrayed in the Bible). For one
thing, if he exists and the universe runs by his magical powers then
the word "hallucination" would be pretty much obsolete, and certainly
wouldn't apply to God if he has the power to make anything real just
by thinking about it. It would also be pretty hard for God to
interpret reality abnormally if God created reality in the first
place.

I'll stick with "God is a psychopath."

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[philosophy]

I'll second that.
I would say, though, that many of the prophets of old
appear to be schizoid.

[Neil Kelsey]

I'll second that (and note that Bible Jesus sounds like a
schizophrenic to me), and add that many of the modern day wannabe
prophets appear to be/are schizoid too - Jim Jones, Joe,
Stonethatbleeds (remember him?), etc. But I think the more successful
"prophets" are the psychopaths.

[LL]

LL. I just thought it was an interesting exercise to see all the
psychological problems we can see in the Christian definition of god.
Did the bible writers of the Old Testament have a copy of the DSM, do
you think?

......

....

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 29, 6:26 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL.  I just thought it was an interesting exercise to see all the
> psychological problems we can see in the Christian definition of god.

I think this is really interesting. But God screams psychopath to me.

> Did the bible writers of the Old Testament have a copy of the DSM, do
> you think?

I wonder what would have happened if they did.

[philosophy]

What do you think this one is? He's certainly a liar....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
He also seems to lack any moral boundaries in that he
flips from one side to the other, he is impulsive and
really does not seem to respect his family at all. If
he did, he wouldn't be lying to himself or to them.
My take is that he is a psychopath, but you may
disagree. The biggest joke of all with this individual
is that he blatantly expects others to support him
and he is studying psychology - go figure.

[philosophy]

Oh, and these are such a sad indictment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals#Peter_Popoff.2C_1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_religious_leaders

[Neil Kelsey]

Thank you! I was trying to remember that guy's name to use as an
example of a successful psychopathic "prophet."

> He also seems to lack any moral boundaries in that he
> flips from one side to the other, he is impulsive and
> really does not seem to respect his family at all.  If
> he did, he wouldn't be lying to himself or to them.

Ted Haggard is an unrepentant liar.

> My take is that he is a psychopath, but you may
> disagree.

I couldn't agree more, but I would have to know more details about him
to be able to fill in the Hare Checklist.

>  The biggest joke of all with this individual
> is that he blatantly expects others to support him
> and he is studying psychology - go figure.

Shudder. That reminds me of what Tony Soprano's psychiatrist (Doctor
Melfi) told him as she fired him as her client after years of
psychotherapy: "all I've done is taught you how to be a better
psychopath."

And religion (and maybe Christianity more than most) is a breeding
ground for people who are likely to be duped by psychopaths - after
all they are taught, usually from birth, to worship one. The
idolization of the psychopath has been one of the fundamental problems
with human civilization IMO. Maybe - maybe - psychopaths were useful
at some brutal early stage of our evolution (and got imbedded into our
genepool as a result), but their usefulness is diminishing.

[philosophy]

Yes, that's the worry.

>
> And religion (and maybe Christianity more than most) is a breeding
> ground for people who are likely to be duped by psychopaths - after
> all they are taught, usually from birth, to worship one. The
> idolization of the psychopath has been one of the fundamental problems
> with human civilization IMO. Maybe - maybe - psychopaths were useful
> at some brutal early stage of our evolution (and got imbedded into our
> genepool as a result), but their usefulness is diminishing.

It certainly is. I look at people like Ghandi, non violence etc.
This is where the strength is. This is where people can change
the wrongs of society. Look at what the Freedom Rides accomplished.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Although religious people were involved - this was much bigger than
mere religion. There were many involved who did not wear their
religion. Mainly, they were students - the young people in colleges,
at the time (1961).
Oops have to go, just got a call from the bank. Have to turn up.
Have a good one Neil. Catch you later.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Aug 29, 6:26 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> LL.  I just thought it was an interesting exercise to see all the
> psychological problems we can see in the Christian definition of god.

I think this is really interesting. But God screams psychopath to me.

> Did the bible writers of the Old Testament have a copy of the DSM, do
> you think?

I wonder what would have happened if they did.

They'd have made their god sound more psychologically stable?

Much like they do now with their Orwellian Double Speak?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Drafterman]

Here is some additional guidance:

Characteristic Associated Manifestation or Behavior
1. Glib and superficial charm - having a surface-level facility for
connecting with others and attracting their positive attention; being
extroverted and completely unselfconscious
2. Grandiose self-worth - having an exaggerated sense of capabilities;
being a braggadocio
3. Need for stimulation or proneness to boredom - constantly searching
for thrills and novel experiences, including risky activities; being
easily bored with conventional events and activities
4. Pathological lying - habitually lying about a wide range of
matters, from those of great importance to those that seem trivial
5. Conning and manipulativeness - using whatever methods of deception
and manipulation are effective in cheating others, especially when it
will cause personal gain
6. Lack of remorse or guilt - lacking the capacity to experience
remorse or guilt, even when responsible for perpetrating harm
7. Shallow affect - lacking the capacity to experience the normal
range of emotions—this deficiency can be accompanied by the
superficial appearance of positive emotions
8. Callousness and lack of empathy - possessing an inability to
empathize with others in their suffering
9. Parasitic lifestyle - taking unfair advantage of others in order to
achieve personal goals, such as financial objectives
10. Poor behavioral controls - lacking the ability to maintain
appropriate control of emotions—this inability is expressed through
aggression, verbal abuse, poor anger management, and so forth
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior - having numerous superficial sexual
relationships without normal levels of emotional intimacy—this
characteristic can also include the use of sexual coercion
12. Early behavioral problems - engaging in bullying, vandalism,
arson, running away from home, and other deviant behaviors before the
age of 13
13. Lack of realistic long-term goals - possessing no reasonable long-
term life goals, thus being unfocused and directionless
14. Impulsivity - engaging in spontaneous and sudden actions
reflecting a lack of understanding of or concern with potential
negative consequences
15. Irresponsibility - lacking the ability to fill conventional
commitments and obligations, such as meeting deadlines, handling
financial obligations, and investing the effort needed to produce
acceptable work on the job
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions - refusing to
understand one's responsibility for one's actions; tending to blame
others for problems caused by one's behavior
17. Many short-term marital relationships - failing to become involved
in or maintain a stable, long-term relationship with a marital
partner
18. Juvenile delinquency - engaging in behavior between the ages of 13
and 18 that involves aggression, exploitation, and manipulation of
others
19. Revocation of conditional release - failing to follow conditions
specified by the court in conjunction with probation or other
conventional release mechanisms (such as adjudication withheld)
20. Criminal versatility - engaging in a wide range of criminal
activities and feeling a sense of satisfaction in avoiding detection
and apprehension

[Drafterman]

Also, we probably shouldn't focus too much on the cut off of 30. Here
are some stats:

When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R
provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject
matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath
would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2
based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A
prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while
someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would
receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for
a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds
normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders
score around 22 (Hare, n.d., para. 10).

For example, I ran through the list myself and graded myself 4-5. Now,
I considered any instance of the behavior as being at least a 1. If we
were to consider 0 as never, and 2 as always, then 1 should
technically be around 50%, in which case I'd be a 0, or a 1 at the
most.

So even if some very generous interpretation of God gets him under the
30 mark, it's clear that he is so far removed from normal, non-
criminal people, to be considered a genuine threat.

If he existed.

[philosophy]

On number one, it is of some concern to even
wonder how many sychophants
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant
are also psychopaths in high places -
politically, I mean.

[Drafterman]

Maybe we should call them psychophants?

> wonder how many sychophantshttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant

> are also psychopaths in high places -

> politically, I mean.- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

On Aug 30, 4:49 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 6:26 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > LL.  I just thought it was an interesting exercise to see all the
> > > psychological problems we can see in the Christian definition of god.
>
> > I think this is really interesting. But God screams psychopath to me.
>
> > > Did the bible writers of the Old Testament have a copy of the DSM, do
> > > you think?
>
> > I wonder what would have happened if they did.
>
> They'd have made their god sound more psychologically stable?

Isn't that exactly what they did, make God seem psychologically
stable? Whenever God acts like a petulant baby in the Bible the
writers certainly don't say he does.

> Much like they do now with their Orwellian Double Speak?

What gets me is that Orwellian Double Speak is so often more appealing
to the gullible than straightforward honesty. Why is that? Is it
because the message can be more appealing (e.g. the former describes
death in religious terms as a temporary inconvenience, while the
latter describe death as a permanent condition)? Is it because the
gullible are easily confused and swayed and can't tell the difference
between lying and honesty?

[Trance Gemini]

Having the details helps a lot and makes the case against God even stronger.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Drafterman <draft...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, we probably shouldn't focus too much on the cut off of 30. Here
are some stats:

When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R
provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject
matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath
would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2
based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A
prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while
someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would
receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for
a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds
normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders
score around 22 (Hare, n.d., para. 10).

For example, I ran through the list myself and graded myself 4-5. Now,
I considered any instance of the behavior as being at least a 1. If we
were to consider 0 as never, and 2 as always, then 1 should
technically be around 50%, in which case I'd be a 0, or a 1 at the
most.

So even if some very generous interpretation of God gets him under the
30 mark, it's clear that he is so far removed from normal, non-
criminal people, to be considered a genuine threat.

If he existed.

This is precisely why it's scary that people worship it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 1, 12:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is some additional guidance:
>
> Characteristic Associated Manifestation or Behavior
> 1. Glib and superficial charm - having a surface-level facility for
> connecting with others and attracting their positive attention; being
> extroverted and completely unselfconscious

<snipped>

 

On number one, it is of some concern to even
wonder how many sychophants
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant
are also psychopaths in high places -
politically, I mean.

It's my understanding that psychopaths will happily be sycophants to those above them, until they can get themselves into a position of actual power.

The Steve Raucci story was actually a good example of that.

http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/11/an-amazing-story-about-a-certified-asshole-on-this-american-life.html

[philosophy]

On Sep 1, 2:54 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should call them psychophants?

Now, there's a thought!!

[philosophy]

On Sep 1, 6:22 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 12:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here is some additional guidance:
>
> > > Characteristic Associated Manifestation or Behavior
> > > 1. Glib and superficial charm - having a surface-level facility for
> > > connecting with others and attracting their positive attention; being
> > > extroverted and completely unselfconscious
>
> <snipped>
>
> >  On number one, it is of some concern to even
> > wonder how many sychophants
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant
> > are also psychopaths in high places -
> > politically, I mean.
>
> It's my understanding that psychopaths will happily be sycophants to those
> above them, until they can get themselves into a position of actual power.
>
> The Steve Raucci story was actually a good example of that.
>

> http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/11/an-amazing-story-about...

Gosh TG, thanks for that. Yes, he's the type of fellow
who really would not believe he could be wrong. I don't
believe one word of his apology. An absolutely horrible
person. Shades of someone we know?

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:04 PM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 1, 6:22 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:35 PM, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 12:23 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here is some additional guidance:
>
> > > Characteristic Associated Manifestation or Behavior
> > > 1. Glib and superficial charm - having a surface-level facility for
> > > connecting with others and attracting their positive attention; being
> > > extroverted and completely unselfconscious
>
> <snipped>
>
> >  On number one, it is of some concern to even
> > wonder how many sychophants
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant
> > are also psychopaths in high places -
> > politically, I mean.
>
> It's my understanding that psychopaths will happily be sycophants to those
> above them, until they can get themselves into a position of actual power.
>
> The Steve Raucci story was actually a good example of that.
>

> http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/11/an-amazing-story-about...

Gosh TG, thanks for that.  Yes, he's the type of fellow
who really would not believe he could be wrong. I don't
believe one word of his apology.  An absolutely horrible
person.  Shades of someone we know?

Raucci is a cream puff in comparison. ;-D

Mainly because Raucci didn't have the money and connections to make things work to the same extreme and extent.

[philosophy]

On Sep 1, 9:11 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yup, there it is again, power and money.
It corrupts the human being.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:26 AM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

> > > >  On number one, it is of some concern to even

> > > > wonder how many sychophants
> > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sycophant
> > > > are also psychopaths in high places -
> > > > politically, I mean.
>
> > > It's my understanding that psychopaths will happily be sycophants to
> > those
> > > above them, until they can get themselves into a position of actual
> > power.
>
> > > The Steve Raucci story was actually a good example of that.
>
> > >http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/11/an-amazing-story-about...
>
> > Gosh TG, thanks for that.  Yes, he's the type of fellow
> > who really would not believe he could be wrong. I don't
> > believe one word of his apology.  An absolutely horrible
> > person.  Shades of someone we know?
>
> Raucci is a cream puff in comparison. ;-D
>
> Mainly because Raucci didn't have the money and connections to make things
> work to the same extreme and extent.

Yup, there it is again, power and money.
It corrupts the human being.

In the case of Psychopaths it just enables them.

They're already like that.

[philosophy]

On Sep 1, 10:14 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed.
I wonder if a psychopath can be "cured"?
Doesn't seem likely.

[Trance Gemini]

Apparently psychological intervention just has the effect of making them better psychopaths.

I really don't know what the answer is in terms of dealing with them other than educating people on what they are, how they operate, etc.

Which is why I'm always harping on the topic. Lol.

I'm trying to educate.

Although I have a lot to learn too. It's one thing to experience or be the brunt of their behavior and quite another to explore the why and wherefores.

[philosophy]

On Aug 30, 12:57 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 7:16 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 9:54 am, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 29, 4:36 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 8:02 am, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 29, 2:39 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > LL: Of course, we're talking aboutgodhere, so there will be

> > > > > > differences.
>
> > > > > > He's also schizophrenic:
>
> > > > > > Definition
> > > > > > By Mayo Clinic staff
> > > > > > Schizophrenia is a group of severe brain disorders in which people
> > > > > > interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some
> > > > > > combination of hallucinations, delusions and disordered thinking and
> > > > > > behavior. The ability of people with schizophrenia to function
> > > > > > normally and to care for themselves tends to deteriorate over time.
>
> > > > > > Contrary to some popular belief, schizophrenia isn't split personality
> > > > > > or multiple personality. The word "schizophrenia" does mean "split
> > > > > > mind," but it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions
> > > > > > and thinking.
>
> > > > > > Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment.
>
> > > > > Tell me about it - both of my siblings are schizophrenics.
>

> > > > > I don't thinkGodis though (as portrayed in the Bible). For one

> > > > > thing, if he exists and the universe runs by his magical powers then
> > > > > the word "hallucination" would be pretty much obsolete, and certainly

> > > > > wouldn't apply toGodif he has the power to make anything real just

> > > > > by thinking about it. It would also be pretty hard forGodto

> > > > > interpret reality abnormally ifGodcreated reality in the first

> > > > > place.
>
> > > > > I'll stick with "Godis apsychopath."
>
> > > > I'll second that.
> > > > I would say, though, that many of the prophets of old
> > > > appear to be schizoid.
>
> > > I'll second that (and note that Bible Jesus sounds like a
> > > schizophrenic to me), and add that many of the modern day wannabe
> > > prophets appear to be/are schizoid too - Jim Jones, Joe,
> > > Stonethatbleeds (remember him?), etc. But I think the more successful
> > > "prophets" are the psychopaths.
>
> > What do  you think this one is?  He's certainly a liar....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
>
> Thank you! I was trying to remember that guy's name to use as an
> example of a successful psychopathic "prophet."
>
> > He also seems to lack any moral boundaries in that he
> > flips from one side to the other, he is impulsive and
> > really does not seem to respect his family at all.  If
> > he did, he wouldn't be lying to himself or to them.
>
> Ted Haggard is an unrepentant liar.
>

> > My take is that he is apsychopath, but you may

> > disagree.
>
> I couldn't agree more, but I would have to know more details about him
> to be able to fill in the Hare Checklist.
>
> >  The biggest joke of all with this individual
> > is that he blatantly expects others to support him
> > and he is studying psychology - go figure.
>
> Shudder. That reminds me of what Tony Soprano's psychiatrist (Doctor
> Melfi) told him as she fired him as her client after years of
> psychotherapy: "all I've done is taught you how to be a betterpsychopath."
>
> And religion (and maybe Christianity more than most) is a breeding
> ground for people who are likely to be duped by psychopaths - after
> all they are taught, usually from birth, to worship one. The

> idolization of thepsychopathhas been one of the fundamental problems

> with human civilization IMO. Maybe - maybe - psychopaths were useful
> at some brutal early stage of our evolution (and got imbedded into our
> genepool as a result), but their usefulness is diminishing.

An interesting snippet I came across
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44376401

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > On Aug 29, 11:45 am, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 29, 11:21 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > > > LL.  Godhas several personality disorders. He is a narcissist, for

> > > > > > > > > > Agreed. It's not that anyone can be turned into apsychopath(it seems

> > > > > > > > > > to be a genetic trait), but most people can be trained to idolize
> > > > > > > > > > them. The *Christian* doctrine of forgiveness might be regarded at
> > > > > > > > > > least in part as a way for the real psychopaths to pave the way to get
> > > > > > > > > > away with their crimes (whether it be rape, thievery, murder,
> > > > > > > > > > genocide, etc) by duping the gullible into believing that they aren't
> > > > > > > > > > crimes. Ted Bundy should be roasted in Hell, but it's different when

> > > > > > > > > >Godsnuffs out hundreds of thousands in a tsuname (and a case can also
> > > > > > > > > > be made thatGodis acting through Ted Bundy anyway).

[Neil Kelsey]

> > idolization of the psychopath has been one of the fundamental problems

> > with human civilization IMO. Maybe - maybe - psychopaths were useful
> > at some brutal early stage of our evolution (and got imbedded into our
> > genepool as a result), but their usefulness is diminishing.
>
> An interesting snippet I came acrosshttp://www.cnbc.com/id/44376401

Snakes in Suits - I read that book. I think it's fantastic that
psychopathy (religion) is becoming a topic of public interest like
this. It's time that these monsters be identified before they cause
harm, not after.

[philosophy]

Yes, it is good. The public needs to be educated.
I see this every day in the education system in Government.
It's the psychopath who gets the top job in the school, and
then the whole school community suffers.
Personally, I think anyone in government should be tested
before being given the top job. It should be standard
practice for the tables to be turned on anyone applying
for such a position to have their colleagues fill out a
Hare assessment on them - not necessarily the actual
assessment, but one that is designed around the
factors of it. I think that things would be very different in
Government, if they did.

The politicians seem to be beyond help. If you look
into History, all our worst murders, including those of
the Inquisition (the Popes), were probably psychopaths.

[philosophy]

Meant to tell you, I read this one, and found it very good.
Must get hold of "Snakes in Suits". Haven't read that one yet.
http://www.amazon.com/Working-Monsters-Identify-Workplace-Psychopath/dp/1442960434/ref=pd_sim_b_22

[Neil Kelsey]

I've worked for companies that promoted based on height, so it's no
wonder to me that

> Personally, I think anyone in government should be tested
> before being given the top job.  It should be standard
> practice for the tables to be turned on anyone applying
> for such a position to have their colleagues fill out a
> Hare assessment on them - not necessarily the actual
> assessment, but one that is designed around the
> factors of it.  I think that things would be very different in
> Government, if they did.

Wow! That could certainly make for a lively workplace, at least!

> The politicians seem to be beyond help.  If you look
> into History, all our worst murders, including those of
> the Inquisition (the Popes), were probably psychopaths.

No doubt about that.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Neil Kelsey]

> Must get hold of "Snakes in Suits".  Haven't read that one yet.http://www.amazon.com/Working-Monsters-Identify-Workplace-Psychopath/...

Thanks, I'll go find it.

[Copper Dragon]

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself.  That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

Start from there.  There is your truest definition of the Reality that God is (as opposed to the fictions you attribute to others in ignorance of their true motives.)

The highest and best and holiest part of yourself is the closest approximation you can ever have of the only reality called God that can possibly matter to you in a real sense.  And it is all within yourself.  So if you call God a psychopath, that only indicates that you are striving to be a psychopath, yourself.  And if you call God love, that indicates that you are striving to be love, yourself.

Which would you rather be?

[Ian Betts]

That is then just a figment of your imagination like the bible image.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/tj91kxPG3roJ.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[philosophy]

CD, just so you understand, the God referred to as a psychopath
is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He's the one who is being referred to as a psychopath, not the
God within (as identified by yourself).

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Copper Dragon <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Well some people believe in the Abrahamic God which is clearly defined in the Bible.

Is that the alleged god you're referring to?

There are well over 3000 defined gods throughout human history so perhaps you could be more explicit?

Which god are you referring to? Or is this one that you came up with on your own?

 

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself.  That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

Start from there.  There is your truest definition of the Reality that God is (as opposed to the fictions you attribute to others in ignorance of their true motives.)

I would probably agree with you that I'm ignorant of the true motivations of believers who attest to the existence of gods.

Why don't you enlighten me? At least to your own motivations if not anyone else's.

 

The highest and best and holiest part of yourself

Where would that be? 

 

is the closest approximation you can ever have of the only reality called God that can possibly matter to you in a real sense.  And it is all within yourself.  So if you call God a psychopath, that only indicates that you are striving to be a psychopath, yourself.  And if you call God love, that indicates that you are striving to be love, yourself.

Which would you rather be?

Someone who believes in rationality and reason and looks to reality for the answers to my questions and solutions to problem rather than making shit up to make myself feel better.

--

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

Freethinkers and atheists Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en

[Timbo]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Your a lying sack of shit. It is that folks tell what they know about what they call "God" that allows us to "know" about what they call God. We don't speculate anything, we only question your accuracy of what you claim. We can only argue your ignorant claims. We are not claiming anything to argue. You cause gods yourself and we know what they are base on rational examination of the universe we both live.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:02:22 PM UTC-7, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Should we forget what the Bible says about God? Because the Bible describes God as the ringleader of an organization whose mandate is to torture all non-members for eternity. That's not speculation, that's fact.

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself. 

And then you'd be the polar opposite of God. 

 

That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

I don't think torture is compassionate. I think it's disturbing that you do. 

 

Start from there.  There is your truest definition of the Reality that God is (as opposed to the fictions you attribute to others in ignorance of their true motives.)

The highest and best and holiest part of yourself is the closest approximation you can ever have of the only reality called God that can possibly matter to you in a real sense.  And it is all within yourself.  So if you call God a psychopath, that only indicates that you are striving to be a psychopath, yourself.

Nope. It indicates that she is able to grasp a concept (psychopathy) and apply it to the real world (which, unfortunately, includes billions of people like you who think that torture is love). 

 

And if you call God love, that indicates that you are striving to be love, yourself.

Nah, it just indicates cognitive dissonance.

 

Which would you rather be?

Rational.  

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Copper Dragon <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

There is no reason whatsoever to associate "goodness" with "deity". In
fact, most world religions until very recently have had no correlation
whatsoever, and many even made a slightly more rational claim that the
gods must actually be out to get us. Certainly a lot more sensible
given the universe's propensity for... well.... getting us. In fact,
if you really get down to "brass tacks", the case can easily be made
that the idea of Jesus was made specifically to coax Greeks into
believing in the deity Yahweh. The Greeks really liked human forms in
their deities, so no proper deity would go about without a corporeal
form. It's certainly plausible that it was invented for this purpose!

[Eric Griswold, R.C.]

This is a great analysis. The Egyptians tried the "infinite, abstract, faceless, monotheistic" model of God for the term of one pharaoh and it failed and people rebelled.  People need to put a human face on their god, or perhaps the face of a jackal or eagle, :) but some face. The Jesus myth is pretty brilliant... you have some average guy who lives and dies, but somehow, he is also identically the same as the abstract monotheistic Yahweh! That is good marketing, to bring God to the level of a Joe Six-pack. Sort of a spokes-model for deity.

The Catholic Church has has even done it one step better, by co-opting all the polytheistic religions with their Saints. A Saint for every occupation, condition, and occasion. And note, you can pray RIGHT TO THAT SAINT. The saint then hits the "forward" key and sends your request straight to God.  

All these tactics are good marketing. You have a basic God who fits the definition of someone with a psychopathic personality disorder. Raging over here, drowning millions of innocent infants in some flood over there, showing no remorse. But luckily, he is surrounded by a retinue of helpers, rather the way Whitney Houston had a staff of 100 to insulate her tantrums from the public. If you know somebody on the "inside" maybe they can slip in a good word on your behalf, when the Deity is in a good mood.

Actually, it is the classic "good cop, bad cop" routine. The bad cop (Yahweh) rages around the room and nukes a few ancient cities to show how serious he is. The good cop (Jesus, or Saint Rita) intervenes and says it will all be OK... as long as you confess... LOL.

[Copper Dragon]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:21:58 AM UTC-4, philosophy wrote:

CD, just so you understand, the God referred to as a psychopath
is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He's the one who is being referred to as a psychopath, not the
God within (as identified by yourself).

I'm not convinced that you have either the authority or even the ability to coherently draw a distinction.  It seems to me, as I said, that you are speculating.  It seems you are essentially critiquing a story, not assessing an entity.
 

[Copper Dragon]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:56:44 AM UTC-4, Trance Gemini wrote:

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Copper Dragon <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Well some people believe in the Abrahamic God which is clearly defined in the Bible.

Is that the alleged god you're referring to?

I remain unconvinced that anything so grand as to answer to the name of "God" can be "clearly defined" in the pages of a book.

The only clear definition I have ever encountered of the God I know is the one given by John: "God is love."

Which is a word equation, and begs a definition, then, of "love."
 
I can venture something, however.  At least one of the useful concepts I associate with God and love is the principle of Unity, Union, and Communion.  This is perhaps something common to many.  We experience joining with loved ones, whether in sexual union or just to share a meal.  Disparate elements join together and become one.  That is at least an approach to what is meant by the principle I have in mind when I think of the words, "God," and "love."  Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that, but that is at least tons better than "A Psychopath."  Wouldn't you agree?

There are well over 3000 defined gods throughout human history so perhaps you could be more explicit?

Which god are you referring to? Or is this one that you came up with on your own?

 

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  Did I invent the Copper Dragon or did the Copper Dragon invent me?

I guess that is the defining difference between an Atheist and an Itheist.  The problem for the Atheist is that she is unable to eliminate herself, whereas the Itheist experiences no such dilemma.
 

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself.  That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

Start from there.  There is your truest definition of the Reality that God is (as opposed to the fictions you attribute to others in ignorance of their true motives.)

I would probably agree with you that I'm ignorant of the true motivations of believers who attest to the existence of gods.

Why don't you enlighten me? At least to your own motivations if not anyone else's.

 

I'm here to melt the ice.
 

The highest and best and holiest part of yourself

Where would that be? 

 

That's another  interesting question.   Some say the head, others say the heart.  What do you say?

I mean to refer to a part of your character, and I am aware that character differs from individual to individual.  My original point in this thread was to encourage you to cease from using the word "God" to refer exclusively to Other People's Fictions, and to start using it in a much more useful and potentially world-altering fashion.  I am here to save the world, and I can't do it alone.  I can only do it in co-operation with other cells in the Transcendental Body of the Copper Dragon.
 

is the closest approximation you can ever have of the only reality called God that can possibly matter to you in a real sense.  And it is all within yourself.  So if you call God a psychopath, that only indicates that you are striving to be a psychopath, yourself.  And if you call God love, that indicates that you are striving to be love, yourself.

Which would you rather be?

Someone who believes in rationality and reason and looks to reality for the answers to my questions and solutions to problem rather than making shit up to make myself feel better.

You can tell yourself that I am making all this up, but you would have to ignore an awful lot of parallels with what an awful lot of other people have already said, to convince yourself of it.  Why not, instead, look within yourself as I've suggested, and see what you can find within yourself to help the world come closer to Unity rather than tearing it apart?  I know, it's "Atheism vs Christianity," but how many here honestly place themselves in the others' shoes, even for a moment?  For example, I am doing that with you, right now, and I am willing to believe that you really want to find solutions.  But to what?  Is "Christianity" to you a problem to be solved?
 

[Copper Dragon]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:27:23 AM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Your a lying sack of shit.

That's not very kind.

It is that folks tell what they know about what they call "God" that allows us to "know" about what they call God. We don't speculate anything, we only question your accuracy of what you claim. We can only argue your ignorant claims. We are not claiming anything to argue. You cause gods yourself and we know what they are base on rational examination of the universe we both live.

It wouldn't be much of a god, that I could cause myself.  Such a god would be less than I am.  And less than I am, could never be God.

So, you are a little off in your assessment.

 

[Copper Dragon]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:14:54 PM UTC-4, Neil Kelsey wrote:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:02:22 PM UTC-7, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Should we forget what the Bible says about God? Because the Bible describes God as the ringleader of an organization whose mandate is to torture all non-members for eternity. That's not speculation, that's fact.

Do you have a cite? 
 

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself. 

And then you'd be the polar opposite of God. 

 

That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

I don't think torture is compassionate. I think it's disturbing that you do. 

 

Assuming that I do.  When did I say any such thing?  I think it's disturbing that you assume.
 

[Trance Gemini]

On Jun 2, 2012 11:31 PM, "Copper Dragon" <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:56:44 AM UTC-4, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Copper Dragon <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.
>>
>>
>> Well some people believe in the Abrahamic God which is clearly defined in the Bible.
>>
>> Is that the alleged god you're referring to?
>
>
> I remain unconvinced that anything so grand as to answer to the name of "God" can be "clearly defined" in the pages of a book.
>
> The only clear definition I have ever encountered of the God I know is the one given by John: "God is love."
>
> Which is a word equation, and begs a definition, then, of "love."
>  
> I can venture something, however.  At least one of the useful concepts I associate with God and love is the principle of Unity, Union, and Communion.  This is perhaps something common to many.  We experience joining with loved ones, whether in sexual union or just to share a meal.  Disparate elements join together and become one.  That is at least an approach to what is meant by the principle I have in mind when I think of the words, "God," and "love."  Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that, but that is at least tons better than "A Psychopath."  Wouldn't you agree?

Ok. So we'll go with a "God  of your own making", shall we?

>
>>
>> There are well over 3000 defined gods throughout human history so perhaps you could be more explicit?
>>
>> Which god are you referring to? Or is this one that you came up with on your own?
>>  
>
>
> That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  Did I invent the Copper Dragon or did the Copper Dragon invent me?

Good question. But no answer. I'm so disappointed!

>
> I guess that is the defining difference between an Atheist and an Itheist.  The problem for the Atheist is that she is unable to eliminate herself, whereas the Itheist experiences no such dilemma.

Ok. I'll bite. What's an Itheist?

>  
>>>
>>>
>>> Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself.  That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.
>>>
>>> Start from there.  There is your truest definition of the Reality that God is (as opposed to the fictions you attribute to others in ignorance of their true motives.)
>>
>>
>> I would probably agree with you that I'm ignorant of the true motivations of believers who attest to the existence of gods.
>>
>> Why don't you enlighten me? At least to your own motivations if not anyone else's.
>>  
>
>
> I'm here to melt the ice.

:-(

>  
>>>
>>>
>>> The highest and best and holiest part of yourself
>>
>>
>> Where would that be? 
>>  
>
>
> That's another  interesting question.   Some say the head, others say the heart.  What do you say?

Hmmm. Well... I'm 5'2" tall so high doesn't come into it but, like most humans I have a few orifices so I suppose I'm holey.....

>
> I mean to refer to a part of your character, and I am aware that character differs from individual to individual.  My original point in this thread was to encourage you to cease from using the word "God" to refer exclusively to Other People's Fictions, and to start using it in a much more useful and potentially world-altering fashion.  I am here to save the world, and I can't do it alone.  I can only do it in co-operation with other cells in the Transcendental Body of the Copper Dragon.

I see.

>  
>>>
>>> is the closest approximation you can ever have of the only reality called God that can possibly matter to you in a real sense.  And it is all within yourself.  So if you call God a psychopath, that only indicates that you are striving to be a psychopath, yourself.  And if you call God love, that indicates that you are striving to be love, yourself.
>>>
>>> Which would you rather be?
>>
>>
>> Someone who believes in rationality and reason and looks to reality for the answers to my questions and solutions to problem rather than making shit up to make myself feel better.
>>
>
> You can tell yourself that I am making all this up, but you would have to ignore an awful lot of parallels with what an awful lot of other people have already said, to convince yourself of it. 

What parallels?

Why not, instead, look within yourself as I've suggested, and see what you can find within yourself to help the world come closer to Unity rather than tearing it apart? 

<Takes a moment to navel gaze>

Nope. Nothing.

I know, it's "Atheism vs Christianity," but how many here honestly place themselves in the others' shoes, even for a moment?  For example, I am doing that with you, right now, and I am willing to believe that you really want to find solutions.  But to what?  Is "Christianity" to you a problem to be solved?

The negative impacts of superstition and lack of critical thought is a problem to be solved.

>  
>>
>> --
>>
>> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
>>
>> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
>>
>> http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
>>
>>
>>
>>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/YA3-6gAX1nAJ.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 8:41:41 PM UTC-7, Copper Dragon wrote:

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:14:54 PM UTC-4, Neil Kelsey wrote:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:02:22 PM UTC-7, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Should we forget what the Bible says about God? Because the Bible describes God as the ringleader of an organization whose mandate is to torture all non-members for eternity. That's not speculation, that's fact.

Do you have a cite?  

Sure, the Bible:

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:)

There's more, of course, but this one is sufficient. 

 

 

 

Look within, and find the highest, most compassionate element of yourself. 

And then you'd be the polar opposite of God. 

 

That is most likely to be closest to what you would like God to be like, if you were to like there to be a God.

I don't think torture is compassionate. I think it's disturbing that you do. 

 

Assuming that I do.

I assumed you were a Christian. This is Atheism vs Christianity, after all. 

 

  When did I say any such thing?  I think it's disturbing that you assume.

Uh huh. So are you a Christian, or not? If not, what happens to you when you die, and what happens to me if I don't believe what you do? And can you be forthcoming about this instead of making me play  moronic guessing games? 

Why do theists do this (play coy about their beliefs)? Do they think it makes them seem more "mystical"? Are they trying to flirt with us? I find their unwillingness to be forthcoming excruciatingly dishonest and a clue that their religious beliefs are fraudulent.

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Eric Griswold, R.C. <er...@clevian.com> wrote:
> This is a great analysis. The Egyptians tried the "infinite, abstract,
> faceless, monotheistic" model of God for the term of one pharaoh and it
> failed and people rebelled.  People need to put a human face on their god,
> or perhaps the face of a jackal or eagle, :) but some face. The Jesus myth
> is pretty brilliant... you have some average guy who lives and dies, but
> somehow, he is also identically the same as the abstract monotheistic
> Yahweh! That is good marketing, to bring God to the level of a Joe Six-pack.
> Sort of a spokes-model for deity.

Exactly. It's like trying to have a deity convince 5th Avenue New
Yorkers of something while wearing white after Labor Day... just not
done!

>
> The Catholic Church has has even done it one step better, by co-opting all
> the polytheistic religions with their Saints. A Saint for every occupation,
> condition, and occasion. And note, you can pray RIGHT TO THAT SAINT. The
> saint then hits the "forward" key and sends your request straight to God.

Yeah, it's gotta get by god's spam filter somehow ;).

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/FlZ2n8o2KWYJ.

[Timbo]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:36:15 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:27:23 AM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Your a lying sack of shit.

That's not very kind.

It is that folks tell what they know about what they call "God" that allows us to "know" about what they call God. We don't speculate anything, we only question your accuracy of what you claim. We can only argue your ignorant claims. We are not claiming anything to argue. You cause gods yourself and we know what they are base on rational examination of the universe we both live.

It wouldn't be much of a god, that I could cause myself.  Such a god would be less than I am.  And less than I am, could never be God.

So, you are a little off in your assessment.

As usual, you try to turn things around Joe.  It does not work. Humans made God greater than self in order to satisfy  their incapable greatness.

[Copper Dragon]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 12:00:07 AM UTC-4, Trance Gemini wrote:

On Jun 2, 2012 11:31 PM, "Copper Dragon" <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:56:44 AM UTC-4, Trance Gemini wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Copper Dragon <draco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.
>>
>>
>> Well some people believe in the Abrahamic God which is clearly defined in the Bible.
>>
>> Is that the alleged god you're referring to?
>
>
> I remain unconvinced that anything so grand as to answer to the name of "God" can be "clearly defined" in the pages of a book.
>
> The only clear definition I have ever encountered of the God I know is the one given by John: "God is love."
>
> Which is a word equation, and begs a definition, then, of "love."
>  
> I can venture something, however.  At least one of the useful concepts I associate with God and love is the principle of Unity, Union, and Communion.  This is perhaps something common to many.  We experience joining with loved ones, whether in sexual union or just to share a meal.  Disparate elements join together and become one.  That is at least an approach to what is meant by the principle I have in mind when I think of the words, "God," and "love."  Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that, but that is at least tons better than "A Psychopath."  Wouldn't you agree?

Ok. So we'll go with a "God  of your own making", shall we?

>
>>
>> There are well over 3000 defined gods throughout human history so perhaps you could be more explicit?
>>
>> Which god are you referring to? Or is this one that you came up with on your own?
>>  
>
>
> That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  Did I invent the Copper Dragon or did the Copper Dragon invent me?

Good question. But no answer. I'm so disappointed!

>
> I guess that is the defining difference between an Atheist and an Itheist.  The problem for the Atheist is that she is unable to eliminate herself, whereas the Itheist experiences no such dilemma.

Ok. I'll bite. What's an Itheist?

This is a bit esoteric, but thank you for biting.

Over the course of time, Trance, the Manifestation of the Word grows.  Mathematically, the number of letters grows in each successive manifestation.  Not necessarily linearly, as I will presently explain.

Krishna brought the Word in the form of a Vibration only, a useful mantra, allegedly the Original Sound from which all else arises.  The Word he brought is spelled with two or three letters, thus my comment above that the progression is not linear.  Krishna brought a single Word, "AUM," or "OM."  The religion that Krishna gave had this Mystic Syllable at its heart: AUM sums up literally everything, hence, the later word, "OMni" means "All."  Anyone familiar with the Bhagavad Gita or with Yoga can verify all that I have said here.

Krishna was also an Itheist.  He himself identified himself completely with God.  The Vedic Scriptures are the source of the well-known teaching that the Atman, or individual self, is identical with the Brahman, the Primal Ground of everything.  The Advaita Vedanta school brings out this teaching, whereas the Gaudiya Vaishnava school contrasts it by asserting that Krishna is the Original Being, and the Brahman is Krishna's radiance.  Such is the confusion and division that followed in the wake of Krishna.  According to the Gita, Krishna instituted the caste system.  In my opinion, he first formed around himself the Brahmin caste, composed of his direct initiates.  In any case, we have today no less than six distinct schools of Hindu thought.  So obviously, the revelation of the Word was with Krishna far from complete.  Later, the Buddha came, and developed his system pointing out the impermanence of everything and the absence of the Self in anything, effectively cutting the knot between the devotional worship of the Vaishnavas and the self-identification with Deity of the Advaita Vedanta.  But I digress.

Moses appeared as an Itheist to Pharoah and initially to Israel, but later Moses revealed the Name of God, "I AM WHO AM," spelled, now, with four letters, not three.  This new Word, YHVH, was now more fully manifest, and did more than AUM, hence, the Exodus, the Law, the Prophets.  A yet further manifestation was Jesus, the Word made Flesh, five letters, in Hebrew, Yod-He-Shin-Vav-He.  With each progressive lengthening of the Spelling of the Word, the revelation of it is greater.

Now to give a fuller understanding of the term "Itheist," we need to consider what came before Krishna's "OM."  But in this day, God is manifesting also in the words, BEAUTY and REALITY (six and seven letters).  And in this New Revelation of the selfsame Word, we have come full circle.  Like the seven days of the week, the seven colors of the rainbow, or the seven notes of the scale, seven leads back to one.  And when a soul such as Krishna or myself enters into the Depth of the Simplicity of the Word, it is all reduced to a single letter.  Krishna expressed it in a single Syllable, as already pointed out, Spelled with two or three letters.  But in his Mind, it was reduced to utter simplicity.  And since, historically, we are now on the brink of the New Manifestation, in Understanding in plain English (God controls ALL things), we look to the English language and note that it has in common usage three one-letter words, to wit: "A," "I," and "O."  These three represent three possible stances with regard to the entire question of "God."

"O" denotes the attitude of worship, thus, people say, "O, my God. . ." when they pray.  "I" denotes self-identification with the Divine Spirit such as was manifest in Krishna, in some cases in Moses (Moses appeared before Pharaoh as very God), and more permanently in Jesus.  So there are in a sense, worshipers we could call "Otheists," and self-identifiers that we would have to call "Itheists," which leaves us to ponder an exact definition for the remaining term, "Atheist."  An Atheist wishes to reduce God, not to a deity to worship, nor to the Self, but to Nothing.

Therefore, an Atheist would say I invented the Copper Dragon, whereas an Itheist would say the Copper Dragon invented me.  Because we are well beyond the time of Krishna, and on the brink of the greatest Manifestation yet to be given, Itheism as such becomes rather passé.  It is Otheism that is coming to the fore now, and Otheism would do away with the whole question of the origin of the Copper Dragon (since the dilemma has no solution) and simply get on with loving God.

The question of Atheism goes back to the Buddha at least, and the question of whether he wished to assert that there was no Self at all, or, on the other hand, whether the Self simply could not be identified with any of the elements of the world.  Of course atheists want that he meant the former, but when asked point blank, he specifically declined to answer at all, essentially stating that it was a useless question.  The Buddha taught that life contains suffering and that compassion on suffering beings was essential to happiness.  I agree, which is why, having experienced the point of view of the Itheist, I choose to enter the way of the Otheist.

Given all of the above, it would appear that a positive assertion of Atheism is tantamount to a positive denial of one's own existence, which is the height of absurdity.
 

> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Ian Betts]

Lets just take a stone, You love that stone and thinks it has magic power. you read an old book that seems to it it confirms those idea so you base your life on a stone. I think you not, its just a stone, I can smash it and analyse its component parts. I do not love it or base my =life on it thank goodness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/l2ZlftpXtRQJ.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Copper Dragon]

What has this got to do with anything I've said?  You think the Eternal Spirit is like a stone that you can smash?

Perhaps, you should look more deeply into Hermeticism and the Tetragrammaton, since the Word of four letters is specifically treated therein as something akin to a composite that can be broken down and analyzed.

When the Word came in five letters, in Jesus, the stone turned to Bread, and can now be eaten, to our very great benefit.  So the Eternal Spirit is now in the world, manifest as Bread, namely the Holy Eucharist, upon Which we may profitably feed.  I do not base anything I say on speculative ideas, but rather on experiential reality.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/l2ZlftpXtRQJ.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Ian Betts]

That is all just a story and has no substance in reality. You just read a book and it come true. I need evidence.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/2sTPtbtyxlAJ.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Birric Forcella]

Why does Jesus always look like a gay pinup boy?

Not that I'm complaining.

But I mean . . . really . . . why not come out with it that you want
him to come into you . . .

Birric Forcella

Proudly using both heads.

[Timbo]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 11:36:15 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:27:23 AM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, Copper Dragon wrote:

Forget about everything you think you know about what other people call "God."  You are only speculating anyway.

Your a lying sack of shit.

 

That's not very kind.

 OK, sorry. I think you may be wrong.  

It is that folks tell what they know about what they call "God" that allows us to "know" about what they call God. We don't speculate anything, we only question your accuracy of what you claim. We can only argue your ignorant claims. We are not claiming anything to argue. You cause gods yourself and we know what they are base on rational examination of the universe we both live.

It wouldn't be much of a god, that I could cause myself.  Such a god would be less than I am.  And less than I am, could never be God.

So, you are a little off in your assessment.

 Your right, it would not and is not much of a god. It is only a man made social/psychological repetition. It has no value vs. human life form.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Birric Forcella <erni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why does Jesus always look like a gay pinup boy?

Not that I'm complaining.

But I mean . . . really . . . why not come out with it that you want
him to come into you . . .

LOL! Good one!

 

Birric Forcella

Proudly using both heads.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--