One of this blogger’s favorite and recurring topics on Planetjan is narcissism. Today alwaysjan talks about it in the context of the TV series Mad Men and its main character Don Draper, beginning with telltale signs of narcissism:
As I read the article by Mary McNamara, I observed the following Red Flags:
1) In three seasons, Don Draper “has not done one single thing that wasn’t driven by rabid self-interest.” 2) “He lies to everyone all the time.”
3) “He cheats on his wife, he cheats on his mistress…”
4) “…the idea that his behavior needs to change does not seem to cross his mind – ever.”
5) He manages to “seem like he’s doing the right thing when that is not his intention at all.”
6) His children exist on the periphery of his life – cardboard cutouts at best
Read more of this post here.
Planetjan talks in depth and at length about narcissism in many posts starting here. We should all learn about NPD–a silent destroyer of relationships, since few people are aware of the disorder in themselves or their loved ones.
This blog also covered NPD and other personality disorders as part of the DSM-IV list as well as in popular fiction like Watchmen. A recent article from the WHO also indicated that personality disorders may be gender-biased.
Have you encountered a narcissist lately?
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
Isn’t narcissism a characteristic and subset of evilness? That’s how I view evil.
What is evil about it?
Okay, so how about us who don’t believe in the “devil” or their existence, or their purpose of being a scape goat?
Evil can exist without the devil, just like humans can exist without god.
So this man can exist as evil without being a devil. Can be condemned even without a hell. In which case, he must repent for his salvation even without a god? Is this what you mean?
With or without god/devil, are your evils anthropomorphic?
Evil is malevolent,ill-willed, harmful from core, holistically harmful, destructive, tormenting from start to finish. I think the common mistake in discerning people is we evaluate the action and not the motive of the person. We also don’t evaluate the personal characterisitics and philosophies of the doer. We have to evaluate the action(result), the motive, and the recurring philosophies of the person simultaneously to either consider him evil or not.
Self-interest, doing things for oneself and putting self first before others isn’t evil. In fact, it’s healthy, good for survival and growth. It’s when not minding the destruction of others while pursuing self-interest that’s evil. One also has to weigh how much we destroy with how much we gain. Is it worth the “sacrifice” of others? In practice, we really destroy something in the process of pursuing self-interest, like killing animals, plants for food. It’s the balance, the value of the one nurtured vs the ones destroyed that should be weighed.
Self-interest is inherent in life. However self-intersest at the expense of others can be a gray area. The notion of “balance” can be tricky as well.
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
When you are analyzing self-interest, don’t shift to the gray area right away. Keep analyzing it. Bounce back and forth the black and white until you are dizzy!
The most idiotic or, as you would call, “evil” people are doing something thinking that it is good, thinking that it’s the best option, or thinking that it’s what the situation calls for. In analyzing stories, and if you must act out that part, let’s say, you must convince yourself how good you are as you are doing what others call “evil”.
Then again, it could be relative. It could be a type of person you need, or you would hire…
That didn’t make sense as usual sands. Idiotic = evil?
It makes sense, although not to your catholic background. When we say idiotic/ignorant = evil (the more catholic sense)
That’s such a cop out and contradictory Sands. How could you say that if you weren’t arguing from a catholic background as well?
Ignorant/idiotic are not moral nor Catholic arguments either.
MTM, you are so mistaken. I’m not Catholic/Christian even when I was.
You are really not getting it. I think you are expecting me to be Christian or something.
My mistake was waiting for you to get to the point and make sense. My bad.
You mistake is in your expectations indeed. For it to make sense to you, you will have to study more.
No I actually got what I was expecting from you. Not much.
Good job. Next time, hug a pillow for comfort. That is not my purpose here.
I stick to my statements within the given contexts:
1. There is nothing more demonizing than moralizing.
Morality is both a vice and virtue, make sure it isn’t the former. When it is the former, you launch into this type of discussion that you are having with me. Therefore, I don’t see the point all the more in your morality campaigh.
2. It is better to fence sit than make a big mistake.
Do what Einstein did at that time, it’s fine. Do that again, too desperate.
I have read various articles about narcissism beacause i have been trying to figure out if someone very close to me has npd. their actions coallate perfectly with the symptoms as far as i can see. an ever demanding self intrest, an overwheliming self-centeredness, accompanied by a steady flow of deception and embelishment. their every action sometimes leads back to getting something they wanted. however there is one thing that simply clashes. the fact that someone with npd would see their actions as normal. (that is why its a disorder right?) but my friend is not that way in fact is constantly talking about all the above listed traits. literally constantly like a river flowing from his face that never stops. and about how they are wrong. so how could one aknowledge such truths about themselves yet still exhibit them? would that be categorized as npd?
If there were no such words as devil or evil, what would we call it? The Filipinos use their common sense wisdoms and call it “Kahayupan.” “Hayop” = “Animal”. Some actions mark the divide between “Tao” (Human) and “Hayop” (Animal). Or “halang ang kaluluwa” (meaning here):
http://books.google.com/books?id=JrsQNekJLh4C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=halang+ang+kaluluwa+meaning&source=bl&ots=2upnZ_hmD7&sig=1f1yeKNJdnfKyhRGnoi_CjJi5ts&hl=en&ei=oDNMTJOALMyPcaj0mLQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=halang%20ang%20kaluluwa%20meaning&f=false
Torment is neutral. To some, without it there shall be no growth or evolution. A psychotic can be tormented about something. A criminal tormented by laws. Finding freedom within structures can be very tormenting. A marriage can be tormenting when it ceases to satisfy. Being on time can be tormenting.
Actually, human beings don’t have to eat and thus don’t have to kill or wreck a plant to survive. Then again, not all of us are yogis. Most of us live accepting the fact that we have one foot deep in the animal world as part animal, or worse.
So to be a narcissist = to be an animal?
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
What is evil? Isn’t it a purely subjective label that we have created to tarnish the person who is unconventional in their way?
Another man’s evil, is another man’s good as you would say.
Is it down to our own judgement on what constitutes good and evil? Which means our judgement on what is good or evil is susceptible to being completely wrong because of our own ignorance.
Or can we all reach a common ground on this particular subject?
Would you say, sands, that people who commit a supposed evil are mostly ignorant? And if this would be the case, can we not enlighten them with the knowledge towards good, rather than dish out punishment?
For example, is murder an evil? If yes, should it not be the same for all murder including the killings perpetrated in capital punishment and war?
Something for us to think about.
Something further to thibk about:
More here.
Nothing has been more demonizing than moralizing, according to me.
“Murder” is a judgment. Let’s just call it killing. There is a difference. It doesn’t matter between killing a pig and killing a (m)animal. We don’t “murder” pigs. We don’t “murder” the carrots. We just kill them. Are you getting my point? We aren’t judging ourselves about these things.
Ergo: you need two things in this material world to get away with it.
1. Right
2. Reason
And still animal rights activists will insist you are murdering the animals. The super, supra-yogis will insist you are murdering the plants. The digestive system, according to them, is a system of the lower evolutionary planes.
Fail Sands.
Just because there are relative levels of morality does not mean we should not or avoid rendering a value judgment.
To avoid judgment is to sanction evil. Why? Because by becoming neutral we refuse to seek and acknowledge its existence.
Its also so un-critical of us to retreat into fence-sitting–and irrational.
You give me 3rd grade, random abstraction on morality and ask me to fail? Do you know the root need for value judgments in the first place?
Which brings me to address another one of those chips on your shoulder. Read Dare To Fail by Billi Lim.
Ah, the fence-sitting. Don’t take me out of context. Einstein was better off fence-sitting in his lab than giving his formula to a US prez.
Sorry for that. Let me know when you graduate to 4th grade so we can continue this chat.
Haha. You have to do better than that, MTM. You must also improve on your reading comprehension. Just because you deal with numbers doesn’t mean you’re grounded – hence, something like what Einstein did.
Deal with numbers? As if you knew.
I don’t have to answer your questions or explain myself all the time, do I? You haven’t answered my many Qs.
Reciprocity enough?
No that will do. Comic relief achieved.
My comic relief was your bourgeoisie morality. If you haven’t noticed, I’m fond of it in that way. Too desperate.
I guess to a clown, everything else looks funny.
See, you didn’t get it again. “Everything else”? Just what exactly is that, something without basis again. I said your bourgeoisie morality. That is what is very funny. Since you keep repeating it, I keep laughing.
Another is that seance mirror-mirror. Please stop that. That’s what emos do. I didn’t find that funny, although I should’ve.
MTM,
You said:
Fail Sands.
Just because there are relative levels of morality does not mean we should not or avoid rendering a value judgment.
—
Now what if value judgments don’t have to be moral? Are pragmatic values acceptable here? You seem to be making morality as an equivalent to value judgments. There are many other types of value judgments, not necessarily moral…
You’re right in there is healthy developmentally appropriate narcissism, and then there’s NPD, which is none of the above. Most of those I know with NPD are not consciously evil. They’re just blissfully indifferent and unaware that others have feelings (actually, they dismiss “feelings” or “drama” as a sign of weakness). When called on their bad behavior, they get this incredulous look on their face, “Who me?”
Their quest for survival though is all about keeping the mask of their False Self in place. There is no balance.
Or a pet! Haha.
– Clap – clap – clap.
Killing as a punishment to a serial killer isn’t evil. Eliminating 1 for the protection of the many is correct. The 1(serial killer) is also a ‘destructive’ human, while the many that’s being protected are non-destructive people.
Another perspective..When resources are abundant, the utilitarian quality of people isn’t questioned. But when there is extreme scarcity of resources, and somebody has to die, the utilitarian quality becomes a yardstick of who should live or die.
Actually, any logical human can pose as a ‘good’ person by doing the logical good acts. But there are really inherently good-natured people and inherently neutral people and inherently evil people who can be doing acts opposite to their nature, but you just know that action and inherent nature don’t match.
For example, if we see Congresswoman GMA giving free house and lot to poor people, that’s an act of goodness. But obviously, she’s not inherently good. I myself am aware that I’m not inherently good, but just doing a logical thing when I gave away my clothes to people who were victims of fire. I didn’t feel the compassion, no sympathy, but logic dictated– unused clothes to people with no clothes, zero pain for me, chance for survival for others.
It may not be evil, Intsik, but some are questioning whether the C.Punishment, let’s say, is effective, is a deterrent indeed, or does it make it even more thrilling to these idiots to commit such acts because the prohibition adds to the glory of the fulfillment of the deed. We are, of course, discussing the innards of insanity. If it is prohibited, it must be good…
Because, first of all, they have hurled themselves into the punishment. They usually know that it is prohibited, that it will get them into trouble. And still they will do it! How come?
For example, before drug use was prohibited here in the Philippines, there were no drug lords. There was not much demand for it, just a sprinkling here and there, but almost non-existent. There wasn’t much of an awareness of it.
When it was lawfully prohibited in the 70’s, the drug lords came about and drug rings were formed. The demand for drugs escalated. The awareness intensified in many ways. The first televised death penalty was a Chinese-Filipino drug lord. He was tied to a tree and tortured by killer ants.
You shouldn’t unnecessarily confuse risk appetite for insanity. Druglords for instance are cognizant of the risks, but the potential returns more than compensate them for the risk. And the fact that the practice continues is prima facie indication that the deterrent is not enough to stymie the incentives.
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
You didn’t get it. The insanity is not the craving. It’s the prohibition. And this isn’t just about the risk. It is about the fulfillment.
MTM, risk depends on your fitness. Put 10 obstacles, it will be risk to the unfit, but nothing to the fit. Risk may not even exist to the totally insane or totally fit.
Whether a mountain / cliff is difficult or not depends on your fitness. It is easy for the fit, difficult for the unfit, and you are talking about the same 1 mountain.
Another crime like rape, for instance, is not even about sex but power. It’s not about the risk, but power, and the power factor is, of course, the fulfillment.
Well, my take on prohibition as strengthening the act you want to weaken is:
how a pragmatic would view this.
And considering this exploration… is Dan his own creation or the creation of a society that thrives on lies?
How much blame is shared by the society for his existence?
Sands, are you saying that we shouldn’t label something as “evil” and just treat all “misdeeds” as neutral happenings? Suppose I get slapped by someone, how do I react if I have no value judgment of that person’s slap? (To slap back? To remain calm but endure the pain? To ignore completely?) If there is really no evil, then there is no need for Justice.
I agree with the ‘evil’ of being morally agnostic, but the scary part of having a moral conviction is ‘what if it’s wrong’? There have been killings and punishments that happened because of wrong moral convictions of people. They were better off as moral agnostics. I’m thinking what should be the qualifications for people to act/react based on their moral convictions. Should we withhold if it can destroy?
Our only way to address the “what if we’re wrong?” problem is critical thinking. We have to be brave enough to have a moral conviction to call out evils and injustices, but also the courage to subject that opinion under the microscope – and change it if evidence to the contrary presents itself. The difference of critical thinking to religious zealotry is not the presence of moral convictions, but courage to submit oneself to judgment as well.
Such is the bane of moralism. It is predisposed to wrongness and to itself later being judged. Such is its nature. Has it worked without great tragedy? You must dare to fail with moralism.
The responsibility to react / respond to it has many facets. Add a legal dimension, and the situation becomes very different. You can slap back with a case. Usually the reason is societal and the question is more about the common good than you alone. What if the slapper is a menace to society (hence, societal concerns), and what if the slapper spreads an unwanted contagion involving the deed? Some people who file cases are more bothered by societal values than individual, and usually say, “I don’t want this to happen to somebody else.”
But, if you notice a pattern in your life, then you created it, or you are getting something out of the situation. Some people feel a strange self-importance in victimhood, although this is hard to admit, and the victim isn’t aware of it. Still a perpetrator is a perpetrator, and it does well to consider all angles of the situation.
Turn the other cheek (as you’ll find in Christian texts) or hit compassionately with an umbrella (as you’ll find in the Buddhist? It is your choice.
What if we make the “slap” as raw as possible, no legal, no societal, no christian, no buddhist interpretation. The one who got slapped was tabula rasa or empty slate, no conditioning from outside. He forms a judgment based on slap alone. It’s painful.
By the time you say “I don’t want this to happen to someone else”, you have already formed a moral judgment of the slap. You have already “labeled” it and “categorized” it.
Ah, the tabula rasa slap would mean that it was a slap for no reason at all? Like the slap of a retard, the slap of a mentally disabled person.
My dog, at least, has a reason for barking. It doesn’t make empty barks. By the way, I haven’t slapped or hit my dog. Maybe I threw some stuff on him out of exasperation, but it has bark rights to express itself with me.
The empty slate is not the slapper, but the one who was slapped. Empty slate meaning you were not conditioned by christianity, buddhism, society, laws of society when you make the judgment of the what the slap means. If you were slapped, by the time you say “I don’t want this to happen to other”, you have already made a moral judgment of the slap.
Buddhism, Christianity, Society Laws, are made for the masses for convenience sake, as guidelines, and for people who are not capable of making correct accurate judgment with correct accurate response towards a situation or other people. Buddhism, Christianity, Society are 2nd hand morals. If you cannot form a better judgment than 2nd hand, stick with 2nd hand for safety.
In an ideal world, people can form their accurate judgment and response.
Regarding the slapped, you cannot function without conditions/programmings. As I did mention, even a dog has its programmings. There are cultural layers, layers of age, layers of experiences, etc. There are layers as a species. Even emptiness has its scientific layers. I think your use of tabula rasa was also for convenience, haha. In the study of masks (labels/personality), it really goes deep.
Regarding 2nd hand morals – how do they become 2nd hand in your terms? They are usually recycled to make them acceptable for a larger whole. If you must stand in the middle of the street, Intsik, I think you would appreciate traffic guidelines at the least. If it is wrong for the Christian/Buddhist/Muslim to cross at a particular time, then they shouldn’t dare. But should it stop the others?
How accurate can we be, however, given a particular situation?
Let’s say Dan is this guy who is crazy about you, earns millions a day, too busy to even mind your day to day life’s details. Would you marry him? Would you settle for pep-talking yourself in front of the mirror every morning during your beauty regimen, so-whatting everything else he does for the sake of your stabilities?
Or he’s your top guy in your company. Can you complain?
I don’t think it’s a moral judgment to not want something to happen to another the way it happened to you. It’s more of a metaphysical realization that when toe hurts, whole body feels it. If another toe hurts, there will be more pain that the whole body will feel.
The issue that we are discussing is if there is evil or none in this world, how do we define evil, and if it is correct to have a moral judgment or be completely morally agnostic.
My position is there is evil, and I have defined it, and I have suggested ways in forming our own morality based on 3 opposing qualities.
Sands position is there is no evil, but just neutral happenings, and we cannot judge, ergo our reaction/position should be based on our preprogramming. If you’re a buddhist, act like a buddhist. If you’re a Christian, respond like a Christian.
Please correct me if I’m wrong with the summary.
No, that is your issue, if there is evil or none, and you believe that there is such a thing as evil – as it relates to how you are tormented. Does that make him a devil?
The original issue, however, is if you are defining this man as a devil or a narcissist, the former to be condemned to lala land hell, or the latter to be sent to a mental institution. I’m more inclined to see him as a narcissist. A sicko. Perhaps trash to somebody, perhaps treasure to others.
Devil – religious
Narcissist – science
A devil can be defined in many ways. Scientifically, it is repressed material that we delusionally think/believe doesn’t exist within us, or a particular circle of community that is the ‘whole’. Moreover, that we delusionally think we didn’t share in creating.
I, therefore, view evil as a systematized mechanism, itself programmed, and isn’t random. I cannot, for the life of me, view it as a scapegoat.
So intsik, would you marry him?
Evil can exist without the devil, the hell, the god. I don’t think there is devil, hell, or god.
So are you going to marry him?
Or would you put up with such a character until you can fire him if he ceases to make profit?
These are questions of expedience as based on your self-interest. These aren’t pragmatic.
Suppose we all agree that there is good and evil, and that morality is based on good and evil, and that morality changes over time, so what is good and evil 50 years ago may not be good and evil now, what then should be our basis for good and evil, moral and immoral?
1. utilitarian quality/value vs uselessness
2. productive/life enhancing vs destructive
3. _____??
4. _____??
Good and evil are not the absolutes that religion would have us believe, but is always a constant process of proposition, validation, and disposition.
Like I mentioned in a comment earlier, self-interest is inherent in all life–so to an individual, there is always a “good” for himself/herself. What becomes a constant and ever debatable gray area–is if the “good” for oneself comes at the expense of another individual.
3. compassion vs apathy
4. _______??
Your #1, 2, 3 and 4 are in the domain of pragmatism.
Narcissism is a sign of the “end times” where men will become “lovers of themselves”. The second letter of St . Paul to Timothy prophecies the syndrome perfectly and
we can see it all around us today.
It is another prophecy which is coming true – it is a result of evolutionary beliefs – eg make the most of it – there is no judgement coming before an awesome God.
What’s fascinating, Charles, is that, in your mythology, it’s been the end times since the beginning. From the end of paradise to the end of the end of the end in the Revelations.
There are 2 versions by different authors of the Genesis, written at different times. Could it be more of a legend? We have creation and genesis stories, too, in our history and culture, but we didn’t believe in them as fact, but as legends.
sandra
Two Genesis authors ? have you seen them ?
This is an old debunked myth – there is a creation story for
the six days – and in chapter 2 more detail about the creation of the Garden of Eden which was a separate area of the world. There is also a summary with recapitulation.
It is not all chronological.
Hey, Charles! How are you? The bible is best read in Aramaic. If you love it so much, you’d study the language, history and culture. I’m not so hot about it, but if I remember my lessons well, in Aramaic there are no superlatives. So when they say, “Biggest,” they say “Big, big, biiiig!” So when Jesus emphasized forgiveness, he’d say 70 x 7.
Also, they like telling long tales, then there’s a moral lesson. It doesn’t mean the tale is fact. The Genesis stories seem to be such a tale where there are moral lessons.
English just isn’t the most reliable language to read or study the Bible. There were no direct translations for certain words. For example, the Aramaic word/s that led to “god-fearing” doesn’t exactly mean “fear” in our language and culture. It’s similar to “awe,” but not even exactly “awe” because there are slight shivers of fear that hasn’t much to do with the way it is used or interpreted.
Sandra.
The Books of Moses were written in Hebrew and ” not one jot or iota can be changed until all is fulfillied ” Jesus.
Jesus is this WORD made flesh. Most of the rest of the Bible was Hebrew and the New Testament was Greek.
The Jews take the utmost care in their writings – there are so many checks and double checks. Even if the words go
against them they cannot change one iota of scripture.
A brief study of the Dead Sea Scrolls will confirm this.
Whether it is a long or short tale does not mean a thing
– it is whether it is true or not. Jesus was the Word made Flesh – He was rejected by his people – crucified – died – and now sits at the the right hand of his Father. He will come again to JUDGE the living and the dead.
It really is a mix of many cultures, Charles, all of which must be studied as intelligently as possible, not forced into our understanding, especially as we are from the modern times. Thus, not just Aramaic.
The Bible is like an encyclopedia. We just give it “brief studies” then make the biggest claims and assumptions, lost in translation.
Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek, that’s more or less the historical chronology of translations. Christians can’t even get it together among themselves, this sect vs. that sect, this version vs. that. Haha.
Sandra
No it is not a mixture of many cultures the books of Moses are written in Hebrew not Aramaic. They cannot be changed until all is fulfilled.
If you sign up for an Alpha course you will find almost no difference at all in the early scriptures – old and new testaments. More accurate and matching than any other
historical writings – and more numerous. The new testaments were written shortly after the crucifixion and Paul wrote his letters before 70 AD when the Romans invaded as did the rest of the apostles.
You are getting caught up in mythology.
Hi Charles, it IS mythology!
It is a mix of very many cultures! Jesus spoke in Aramaic, what are you talking about? He was a Jew!
The only recorded time in the Bible that Jesus got very mad was at…? Can you tell me where he was?
When men stop believing in God – they will believe in anything – Chesterton – is all I feel like saying.
Sandra – get a copy of the Bible Code – the words are written in stone – no human can change them – Jesus was the WORD made flesh.
You will notice that DNA is a “word type” based code.
God knows your end before you were born – he knows the time of your birth and death. He knitted you together in your mother’s womb – he knows when you stand up and sit down – He is in charge of every atom in the universe.
Nothing existed before He made it. Find the truth now before GODS drastic surgery which I have had twice in my life – become a bible believing Christian – cheers Allan
Okay, so if you think that was a divine “sign” that Jesus’ DNA has a word type based code… I think it’s an even bigger sign where Jesus was recorded to have gotten very mad in the Bible. You tell me where he was, Charles.
One of the Devil’s greatest deceptions is that he does not exist. Google up ” 23 minutes in Hell” and lots of other Hell
sites – such as St Jonh Bosco and Mary Baxter.
The terryfying bit is you never get out so it is not like a jail
sentence or death – is it continual torture for ever – utterly
terryfying. Jesus cruxifixion was so painfull to free you from this – and he did not flinch – he went through it.
Oh, I just have to add this, Charles…
The Greeks are great story tellers themselves, while the Aramaics loved speaking in parables. The Greeks had myths here and there, made all the analysis of them. They took their myths and sports seriously, for sure, and to this day we look forward to The Olympics. Haha!
As Jesus spoke it and referred to it, “sin” is “khatatha” (Aramaic). This word was translated from Aramaic to Greek and, interestingly, in Theopedia, meaning the same thing. In this link it says, “The word “khatatha” was shouted out to let the archer know he’d missed the mark and to try again. ”
http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:Sin
Sandra – we all have DNA code in our cells – it is 7 feet long
never gets tangled – sorts out mistakes – and holds your every characteristic. Bill Gates said no computer code can even come near to matching its information and compression and complexity.
Jesus Angry ?
Are you meaning when the moneychangers were using the
sacred Temple as a rip off shop.
If Jesus ever got angry you better believe it was justified. But Jesus did not come to judge the world but to save it – so he suffered in our place for a Holy God who hates sin and is a God of Justice . Therefore either Jesus
pays the penalty for your sins or you do – which do you prefer ?
Google up the ” Way of the Master” with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort about everone’s court case which comes
when they face their creator – at death and judgment . I don’t stand a chance so I am relying on Jesus to be my advocate or lawyer.
So please dont follow the philosophy of this present adulterous world and sin against an awesome God of Justice and Holiness who created your 3 billion characters
of your DNA as an unique being.
I know that we all have DNA (in the cells), and even that isn’t written in stone. You can re-engineer that.
Yes, Charles, he was at the money changers at the sacred temple. That was the only recorded superlative anger of Jesus in the bible. And that is a very big sign! Jesus said:
“Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.”
Jesus spoke in parables because that was the culture, and so it wasn’t uniquely Jesus. It may even be possible that Jesus was himself one long parable.
When it comes to “sin,” I am more Greek (translation) about it. I feel about sin as “hamartia,” which is a Greek word (perspective) used in the analysis of their literature and tragedies. They used this in their description of sin, originally a term in sports, particularly archery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia
The understanding of sin, therefore, in Greek terms was that you intended to be happy, let’s say, but you did something else, thinking that it will make you happy, and instead you get into a tragedy.
If sin had these cultural layers, and from a culture a language and understanding grows, I would be sharing in the understanding more lengthily.
My conclusion therefore of whether Dan is, more specifically, has this hamartia called Narcissism. A tragic flaw.
YOU CANNOT RE ENGINEER DNA by yourself.
In a lab scientists can splice genes and make a pink sheep
but they would not know how to change the DNA of a sheep into say a porpoise. So for blind chance to do this would be utterly impossible. But even if they could this is INTELLIGENT DESIGN by scientists NOT EVOLUTION.
DNA has never been made in a lab they can only use existing DNA which was created by God.
Sin is breaking the ten commandments in thought or deed and lots of other things such as unjustified anger , fornication etc – It is clearly explained over and over in the new and old testaments in the original hebrew and greek.
Google up the “Way of the Master” . Kirk Cameron and Ray
Comfort explain the way to avoid punishment for our sins.
The only way – Jesus.
Okay, Charles. It’s great if it is Jesus as your only way, nothing wrong with that. And you cannot re-engineer DNA by yourself, Charles.
You will get along best with discussions w/ MTM as he is a true blue moralist, although he likes swinging out of it, but he is.