Joined: May 2007
(I am translating from the Norwegian edition of C. G. Jung’s “Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten”)
“As initial symptoms of his grave compulsory neurosis, a 15 years old patient had the following dream: He is walking down an unfamiliar street. It is dark. He hears footsteps behind. He walks faster, a little frightened. The footsteps come closer and his anxiety rises. He begins to run. But the footsteps seem to be catching up with him. Finally he turns around, and he sees the Devil. Filled with fear of death he jumps up into the air and stays hanging there. This dream was repeated twice as a sign that it was of special importance.
As we know, compulsory neurosis – by its exaggerated cautiousness and ceremonial compulsiveness not only appears with a superficial likeness of a moral problem, but it is also at the bottom inhumanity, criminality and evil, the integration of which the otherwise finely organized personality desperately oppose. Because of that so much needs to be done in a ceremonially “correct” manner, as it were a counterweight against the evil lurking threateningly in the rear. After this dream the neurosis, that mainly consisted of the patient – as he expressed it – holding himself in a “provisional” or “uncontaminated” pure condition, where he “nullified” or “annulled” his contact with the world and everything that reminded of perishability by insane, over-complicated, scrupulous cleansing ceremonies and an anxious observance of numerous and exceedingly complicated rules. Even before the patient realized what hellish future awaited him, the dream showed him that for him it involved a pact with the Devil, if he wanted to return to Earth again.”
I engaged poor pal Sal in a debate on ARN about 10 years ago. I got so annoyed with his arguments that I deleted the entire thread. I sometimes have regretted that I deleted it. But now that I see how he has been busy digging – not his own grave but more like a veritable mausoleum, it doesn’t matter.
After having read this thread from the beginning up to page 10, I think I have had more than I can digest. And still there are 17 pages left. It beats Stephen King!
Sal appears to be a very sick man indeed. His whole reason for being such an IDiot creationist seems to be motivated by a need to prove the bible is true and can be relied upon.
What hell it must be to be a grown man who is so afraid of facing life standing on his own two feet that he needs magic to face it, and then spends his life trying to prove the magic is real to himself and others.
This is the hell hole of faith. Every believer doubts at some level, this is why they hate those of us who doubt out loud.
Sal is a vile man.
It has long been clear that what motivates the creationists is their strong desire to have their faith confirmed. Since their faith is founded not only on the bible itself, but on the premise that the bible actually is the Word of God and therefore literally true, they are suffering from doubt and uncertainty.
Came ID to their rescue offering relief. They would have been complacent and happy had not science been doing its best to strew salt in the wounds.
Some double-thinkers are able, as they claim, to accept science, except they believe in a young earth anyway because that is what the Bible says. With Sal it is different; he is trying to create a universe that fits his faith.
So at page 10 of this thread it struck me; he is in a position reminiscent of Jung’s miserable patient. Sal has entered in a pact with creationism to save his peace of mind. To him, conceding to the evolution of species ( and probably abiogenesis as well) as the result of natural processes is to him nothing less than the death of God. So what can he do? As said, he creates a universe corresponding to the universe he thinks is needed to keep God alive. The lesser evil to him is to twist reality, to engage in deceit and unethical behaviour like editing, modifying or just deleting arguments he don’t like. Anything goes as long as it can uphold the illusion. He simply is blind, really blind, to his own shortcomings. He simply is incapable of viewing himself objectively. The inflated ego he displays is proof of that.
There is a saying in his beloved Bible that says it all:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
This actually is but one of many examples of how the Bible also contains truth, profound psychological insight. 20th century depth psychology calls it ‘projection’. We project the dark sides of ourselves onto other people – in an attempt to liberate ourselves. It is the scapegoat principle in action.
Rocks have no biology.