Was Jesus Crazy?

Temptation of Christ
Temptation of Christ

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion.

--Robert M Pirsig

Jesus' mental state

Jesus was one of the most controversial and charismatic figures of his time. His teachings were iconoclastic. His personality and demeanor were disruptive and shocking to the social order. Jesus claimed to be the son of God, an outrageous assertion for any person in any time or place, but especially in the extremely religious world of first century Palestine.

His claim to divinity and omnipotence is also typical of certain mental disorders. There are other indications in Jesus' behavior that he may have been deranged.

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Assuming the stories of Jesus' life represent real experiences of the man, a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is probably the most likely if Jesus was mentally unstable. Symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia include:

  • Auditory hallucinations, such as hearing voices
  • Delusions, such as believing a co-worker wants to poison you
  • Anxiety
  • Anger
  • Emotional distance
  • Violence
  • Argumentativeness
  • Self-important or condescending manner
  • Suicidal thoughts and behavior

Delusions can include the belief that an authority or institution is "out to get you" or monitoring one's every move. They can also include delusions of grandeur, in which one believes they can do amazing or impossible things. Auditory hallucinations are sounds or voices that no one else can hear. Paranoid schizophrenics are usually able to function more or less normally in day-to-day life. This is relatively unique among sufferers of schizophrenia.

Jesus' willing acceptance of execution by Roman authorities is arguably an indication of suicidal behavior. This passiveness in the face of death has been understood by Christian tradition as Jesus "having a plan" all along. His belief that he had miraculous powers of healing and other powers may indicate delusions of grandeur. Another potential example of delusional behavior is Jesus' reference to bread and wine as his "body" and "blood" for the Apostles to eat and drink, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26: 26-28).

Jesus had conversations with what he considered to be Satan (Matthew 4: 1-11), and claimed to be in communication with God the Father. Jesus exhibited other symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia: anxiety, anger, emotional distance, argumentativeness and condescension.

Jesus Ministered to by Angels
Jesus Ministered to by Angels | Source

Biblical indications of mental disturbance

Jesus believed he was sent by God on a special mission:

Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me." (John 7:16)

Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me." (John 7: 28-29)

A common belief in paranoid schizophrenics is that they have been "sent" on a "mission," and that they are "chosen" above others for some special purpose.

Paranoid schizophrenics often borrow from the cultural context to construct their delusions. For instance, John Nash, the genius American mathematician who went through this disorder in the 1950s, believed that communists were plotting against him. If Jesus was a paranoid schizophrenic, it makes sense that he would understand his delusions in the context of the beliefs and motifs of his culture: miracles, the God of the Hebrews, the Jewish messiah and the prophecies of the Old Testament all played a role in his claims.

Jesus exhibited delusional and erratic behavior. One example is his chastising of Peter, one of his followers, seeming to refer to him as Satan:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, "Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Mark 8: 31-33)

Perhaps Jesus thought Peter was Satan in this moment, or that he was possessed by Satan. This passage also demonstrates a belief that the power structure (the elders, chief priests and scribes) is aligned against him.

Jesus often refers to himself in the third person, perhaps indicating delusions of self-importance:

Then they departed from there and passed through Galilee, and He did not want anyone to know it. For He taught His disciples and said to them, "The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day." But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him. (Mark 9: 30-32)

His followers may have been "afraid to ask him" to clarify this statement because they were intimidated by his erratic behavior or unpredictable temper. This passage again demonstrates conspiratorial paranoia on the part of Jesus.

Jesus also made contradictory statements and claims. He says:

Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it. (Mark 10: 15)

So only children are eligible. Yet later in Mark 10 he says, also assuredly:

So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time... and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10: 29-30)

Jesus displayed physically violent behavior once during the Gospels:

Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.'" (Matthew 21: 12-13)

Jesus' childhood

Mental disturbances often have their roots in childhood. A difficult family life or alienation from parents can contribute to mental problems later in life. In Jesus' case, the myth of his virgin birth points to a potentially troubled childhood. His mother Mary was already pregnant by the time of her engagement to Joseph, a shocking and outrageous occurrence in a culture where female virginity held paramount importance.

Thus it is quite plausible that Mary's extramarital relations, whether a one-time occurrence or an ongoing feature of the marriage, sowed the seeds of mistrust and animosity between Mary and Joseph. It is not hard to imagine a very difficult childhood, or father Joseph as a potential emotional or physical abuser of Mary and Jesus.

The death of Jesus

A major piece of evidence that Jesus was mentally disturbed is the fact that he went to the grave for his beliefs. Rather than simply relinquish his fantastic claims to avoid pain, torture and death, he held onto them until the very end. It is very hard to imagine a sane person behaving this way. A sane person may concoct an unbelievable story, but when push comes to shove and his life is in danger, he will usually relent. Even pride or the desire for a "legacy" or to save face is rarely enough to overcome the basic survival impulse in a normal person.

Jesus' genius, insanity and legacy

Needless to say, it is impossible to know for sure what Jesus' mental state was, and these lines of evidence are certainly not conclusive. It is just as possible that Jesus himself was a sane teacher, but many of his followers were mentally unbalanced. This would help to explain why many had visions of Jesus after he was dead. Gospel writers and others may have experienced delusions or false memories, in addition to fabrications, exaggerations and white lies. It is not hard to imagine that, as the years went by after Jesus' death, such exaggerations and fantasies multiplied as the myth of Jesus snowballed.

There is a very low incidence of major religious leaders and prophets through history. If many of them were mentally deranged in one way or another, this would be consistent with the low occurrence of mental disorders in the general population.

If Jesus was insane, it doesn't negate his contributions to ethics or philosophy, any more than John Nash's insanity diminishes his contributions in mathematics, economics and other fields. There is an established connection between mental disturbance and extreme intelligence. While not characteristic of all geniuses or all insane people, an overlap between genius and insanity has been observed. Sometimes it takes someone of mental disturbance to provide the kind of bold and iconoclastic thinking that disrupts existing norms and assumptions, but also opens the path to new human potential.

More by this Author


Comments 175 comments

JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

liar....lunatic...lord or legend. Classic stuff.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Thanks, glad you liked it.


Lybrah 3 years ago

This is blasphemy...it saddens me...I will pray for you.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Gee, thanks. Just what I need, another prayer.

If you take a moment to consider the evidence, and suspend your preexisting assumptions, maybe you could learn something new.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

The question is....pray to whom?


Lybrah 3 years ago

That's exactly what Satan wants you to believe.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

Which satan?


anndango 3 years ago

What a refreshing and interesting read! Logical arguments and bold insights. Voted up.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Thanks, Ann! I appreciate it. Glad you liked it.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularist:

I did not know until now that, aside from your much vaunted expertise in philosophy, religion, small business, finance, economics and politics, ...you are aslo an excellent psychobabbler.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ad hominem arguments are always a convenient way to avoid the main issue being discussed, Villarasa. Your comment is pointless, tedious and unsurprising.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

I would say the same thing about your hub....despite all the honorifics heaped on it by your fellow psychobabblers


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Haha, I knew you were going to say that. You're so predictable. Name calling is all you have to offer. Anything to avoid the main issue being discussed.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularist:

As far as I am concerned there is no issue (main, peripheral or otherwise) to be discussed that could be gleaned from this rather absurd hub.

I mean, to put an essay wildly speculating the mental status of a historical figure who lived more than 2 thousand years ago, based on what you think are biblical passages that confirms your thesis... is total nonsense. Even professional biblical historians and scholars( and I'm sorry to say, you are not one of them) do not have the gumption that you have manifested in writing this malfeasance of an essay.

When I labeled you a Psychobabbler, I was right on target. So I think that name fits.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

wait - you mean jesus was a historical character? Like out of contemporary, independent historical sources? That's news to me - and practically every rational biblical scholar out there.

I'm not saying he didn't exist - but there is NO contemporary, historical evidence from him. The gospels are 2nd-3rd hand accounts 40-120 years after the fact. Historically speaking, there are only a HANDFUL of sources, some of them have been demonstrated to be forgeries (like Josephus) and others speak of Christians - not the christ himself. All of the events listed in the gospels firstly contradict themselves, and secondly are not verified anywhere else. You may want to rethink.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@JmcFarland:

If, as you are positing, the historical veracity of Jesus is still in question because biblical references about him are unreliable, then why did you give secularist a whopping thumbs up on a hub (which you called "classic stuff") that discussed the mental status of a figure you are not inclined to believe really existed?


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

Because his hub is a decent, opposing spin to cs Lewis' liar, lunatic or lord - and I added legend. That's why


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@JMcFarland:

I don't share your view that the hub is "decent" ... in fact I am stunned by its intellectual hubris bordering on the dishonest. Having tangled with Secularists on many occasions, covering multiple topics, I can only say that I am not surprised that I find this hub particularly appalling.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

And you're entitled to your opinion, just like other people are entitled to theirs.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Nobody is forcing you to read anything, Villarasa.

Were you under the impression that I am a Biblical scholar? Rest assured I am not and never claimed to be, lol.

"I mean, to put an essay wildly speculating the mental status of a historical figure who lived more than 2 thousand years ago, based on what you think are biblical passages that confirms your thesis... is total nonsense."

If my argument is nonsense, then it should be quite easy for you to demolish it with logic and evidence. And yet you have still not done anything resembling that, preferring instead the domain of emotion and name-calling. Funny, that.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularists:

You started the name calling by labeling in your hub, with no clear empiric ( ironic, since you and your ilks are so into empiricism) evidence except wild speculation about the mental status of Jesus Christ. Now that I am calling your hub an exercise in "absurdum ad infinitum", you are accusing me of name calling?.. Ironic, that... in a funny sort of way.


SpanStar profile image

SpanStar 3 years ago

Typical when someone has a radically different point of view how often there are those of us who quickly try to bring them down.

Historically innovators have been viewed as crazy, bazaar etc. since there views did not fit with the standard quo. And yet we, meaning society benefited from the contributions made by does some of us claim are unstable, the Trial of Galileo Galilei.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/gali...

Mahatma Gandhi of India was considered a troublemaker, discriminated against, beaten etc. as his approach towards violence was nonviolence.

Before society listened to his message Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. was also considered a troublemaker, hated for wanting to bring the nation together as brothers and sisters.

Your article talks about the insanity or at least your perception of insanity pertaining to Jesus the Christ and your article completely ignores the insanity in which the world has always been engaged in. There has never been born a generation where there was not conflict, where is the sanity in that? Where is the sanity when it comes to turning people into slaves? Where is the sanity when we as people consistently engaged in hatred, hostility, war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi

There is insanity, there has been insanity:

"The fault Brutus is not in the stars, But in ourselves"

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/fault-dea...


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

As a Christ follower, I find your hub intriguing. Although it is not a new consideration. Famed Christian writer C.S. Lewis and Christian Apologist Josh McDowell both attempted to answer this question. Before he converted to the Christian faith, McDowell took up the challenge to attempt to disprove the tenets of the Christian faith. As referred to by JMcFarland, McDowell considered Lewis' idea that due to his claims Jesus had to be either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord. After extensive research, McDowell became convinced that the evidence was overwhelming that Jesus is indeed Lord. The findings of McDowell's research are found in the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Still, I am not offended if another person thinks otherwise and decides to amuse themselves and others with alternate theories. Jesus told us this would happen and he would not have been offended in the least. The Apostle Paul wrote that the wisdom of God is foolishness to men. They scoff at the notion of Jesus, shaking their heads, asking: Why would the King of the Universe ever allow himself to be killed by mere mortals? That is absurd. The answer: "God so loved the world...." Why would anyone want to reject such a love as this?


ParadigmEnacted profile image

ParadigmEnacted 3 years ago

Maybe so. Interesting angle. I'm sure the society he was part of would have aided his psychological discord a great deal, but that society isn't here anymore.


Man of Strength profile image

Man of Strength 3 years ago from Orlando, Fl

Thanks for writing this, I admire your honesty in your work. To this day, depending on your beliefs Jesus is a polarizing subject. A well written & thought provoking piece.


Sean 3 years ago

Simply look for proof concerning whether or not Jesus Christ was sane or not. This popular name, known as Jesus Christ, is also found written throughout the KJV Bible in a specific manner. It is done in a clever, but simple, encoded manner. Thus one can literally say that the KJV Bible is the true Jesus papers. This provides substantial proof of the existence of the so called higher powers known as Jesus Christ and God.

This proof can be found at http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

At the web site, it is shown that tons of “Proof of GOD” is ENCODED within the Bible. Here are a just few basic but astounding examples. In code form, we find the following.

Search for the words “The Father”, and sure enough, we find “GOD”.

Search for the words “The Lord”, and sure enough, we find “CHRIST”.

Search for the words “The Father”, “The Son”, and “The Holy Spirit”,

and sure enough, we find “GOD” and “CHRIST”.

All this information is present, but in an encoded form. And the list goes on and on…. How can such encoded information be anything else other than the real deal?

But again, to see this encoded proof, simply go to http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

Then click on the flashing words “Watch / Listen”, and let the webpage take you on a webpage tour of such proof.

Why is this proof not in the news you may ask. Well, if you too examine it and base your decision of it upon a belief or disbelief, then obviously you too are not interested in approaching truths since mere beliefs and disbeliefs are enough for you instead.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--"absurdum ad infinitum" lol? Is that even proper Latin grammar? More white noise.

Span Star--You make some important points. And I did say at the end that Jesus made positive contributions, mental issues or not. But I am talking about clinical insanity, not "insanity" in the sense of troubles or the difficulties, injustices or violence of human experience. On that count, certainly, humanity has always been "insane" to one degree or another.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ecoggins:

Thank you (I think). The main reasons to not accept the basic claims of Christianity lie elsewhere, and they have to do with simple logic and evidence. Given the logic and evidence, it is actually impossible to rationally believe in Jesus Christ or Christianity. Self-legitimizing claims of the Bible and Christianity only serve to distract interested parties from the main issues, and to make believers feel better about their irrational beliefs.

As far as I can tell, Christianity collapses long before we even get to the claims and assertions you mentioned related to "God's love."


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Paradigm:

Indeed, thankfully that society is not here anymore.

Man of strength:

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Sean:

These kinds of theories have been around for a long time. For instance, the "Bible Code" still makes an appearance now and then. The evidence is weak to put it mildly. Anyway, even if there was such a magic code in the Bible, you still have to explain why anybody should take the Bible seriously in the first place.


Kevin Peter profile image

Kevin Peter 3 years ago from Global Citizen

Your hub is quite interesting and confusing too. Why do you consider Christ to be crazy. He is the son of God and as a follower of his teachings I am rather confused. But you have studied well on the subject and read the holy Bible with great vigilance. Nice work!


Man of Strength profile image

Man of Strength 3 years ago from Orlando, Fl

Secularist, This is such an interesting hub. I consider myself a Christian, but as I read more & expand to a broader way of thinking, I do doubt some things. At the same time some events in my life, seemed to be of divine intervention. What led you to your views on Christianity?


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

Secularist10, have you read Evidence that Demands a Verdict? If you have not read it then you do not have all the logical evidence of the case. Historical events do not need to be logical to our human mind to be real. For instance, as a secularist you probably believe the universe came to exist out of nothing. Just like I believe God existed out of nothing. Both beliefs are illogical from a human frame of reference. It is impossible for nothing to become something. And yet, here we are. So if we can accept that the universe came into existence out of nothing, then why is it difficult to believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead? Or that the Ceator of all things would sacrifice himself for all humankind? Some people I suppose can't handle that kind of love...they've never known it...and so they reject it.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Kevin:

Thank you very much. I don't know what Jesus' mental state was. I was simply exploring the possibility that he was crazy. But we can never know for sure of course.

Man of strength:

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that you are exploring new ideas and ways of thinking. That is a virtuous pursuit for anyone of any background or belief system.

I've never been religious, and was exposed to multiple religions and ways of thinking as I grew up. So I was able to get a more "objective" (such as it is) perspective on things than if I was raised in one tradition exclusively. I could see the flaws and contradictions in all religions, including Christianity, by simply applying reason and common sense.

I wrote about the roots of my beliefs here: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/My-Secular...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Condominium:

Very true. Like the game "telephone," the more removed from the original event, the more twisted and skewed the message necessarily becomes. If Jesus was not as he is described in the Bible, then all bets are off.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ecoggins:

I have not read that particular work, but I have read plenty of others. I have not seen a novel argument for the existence of God or for Christianity in a long time. All arguments from apologists are basically rehashes or repackaging of earlier arguments (as are the arguments from atheists and secularists; between the ancient Greeks, Augustine and Aquinas, most of this stuff was covered already long ago on all sides).

"Historical events do not need to be logical to our human mind to be real."

Well, we do not need to understand something for it to be real, that's true. But if something is real, there is almost always a logical explanation for it. There is precious little in human experience that continues to defy explanation at this point.

"For instance, as a secularist you probably believe the universe came to exist out of nothing."

That's you jumping to conclusions. I most certainly do NOT believe that the universe came from nothing. Reality is eternal and uncreated. In fact, most atheists and secularists do not believe in "something from nothing," despite theistic caricatures to the contrary.

It is the belief of "something from nothing" that is the root of so many logical problems for theism.


Man of Strength profile image

Man of Strength 3 years ago from Orlando, Fl

Very true, I've always been in confusion about Noah's Ark. If there were 2 of every animal on the ark, who cleaned all that poop up?!!!!


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

Man of strength - especially when there was only one window. What did the carnivores eat? How did they store food with no refrigeration? What about termites or woodpeckers?


foemeno profile image

foemeno 3 years ago from New York


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

"That's you jumping to conclusions. I most certainly do NOT believe that the universe came from nothing. Reality is eternal and uncreated. In fact, most atheists and secularists do not believe in "something from nothing," despite theistic caricatures to the contrary."

I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Well if this is what you truly believe about the existence of the universe then you must agree that your idea of "reality as eternal and uncreated" is a presupposition you hold by faith. For there is no way to prove that there was no beginning of the universe. Such a notion would be beyond the human experience.

If you live by this faith proposition, then we begin on common ground.

It does seem to be true that existence itself is the greatest miracle of all.

If you have not read Evidence that Demands a Verdict then you do not yet know what you do not know.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

I have read Evidence that Demands a Verdict as well as the Case for Christ and found both of them to be unconvincing and circular - and I'm hardly alone.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ecoggins--I will look into it, by all means. I'm always open to new ideas and arguments, but I don't expect any revelations.

"your idea of "reality as eternal and uncreated" is a presupposition you hold by faith"

Nope, it is a conclusion based on evidence in logic. In this case, the empirical evidence tells us that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. That's one piece of evidence to start with. Another is the recent discoveries in quantum mechanics that support the notion of an uncreated reality, and undermine the idea that the universe was created "ex nihilo." And then logic tells us that something cannot arise from nothing, by definition. So this idea is very well-founded on those counts.

Now, I do accept the need for some blind faith assumptions. But it is very narrow and limited. Far more limited than the staggering amount of blind faith demanded by supernatural belief systems.

Aside from my blind faith in my senses and in my capacity to think, there seems to be precious little that I need to believe on pure blind faith alone.


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

Si, a faith proposition nonetheless. A faith proposition based on your presupposition that how something measures or presents itself in the present time or even over the last century is exactly how things would have measured or presented itself 100,000 years ago, 10 billion years ago, or 40 billion years ago. The existence of matter and energy are a historical event and the longevity of their existence cannot be known for certain unless there existed something to record how and when it happened. I admit that reality may be as you think it is and as the evidence seems to present itself to you. However, it is impossible to know for certain whether matter and energy is eternal. Just as it is impossible for me to prove to you that God is eternal and uncreated and the maker of the reality you so deeply trust, even if you choose to deny his existence or activity as originator of all things seen and unseen in the universe.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

"A faith proposition based on your presupposition that how something measures or presents itself in the present time ... is exactly how things would have measured or presented itself 100,000 years ago"

But this is not a blind faith assumption. It is, in turn, based on evidence and experience: the fact that I have seen such things happen already.

For instance, I saw the sun rise today, and I also saw it rise yesterday and the day before. So that lends support to the idea that it rose also 10 years ago. Especially if I know that many of the other factors in question--the existence of the earth, the earth's orbit and so on--also existed in the past.

Now, is it certain? Of course not. And of course total certainty can never be had about anything. But there are *degrees* of certainty, with some things more certain than others. The level of certainty that is warranted is determined by the evidence and the logic supporting the idea.

So unlike matter and energy, there is no observation or logic that compels us to believe in a supernatural world. All of the evidence that has ever been brought to bear can be explained in a naturalistic framework.


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

To know my friend Tim Brodie is to know that he is extremely analytical by personality and prone to skepticism. He and his wife llike C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and countless others before them took up the challenge to prove that God and the Bible and the claims of the Christian faith were logically incoherent in every way, shape, and form. Yet after he and his wife examined the evidence, they came to the conclusion that the Bible and the claims of the Christan faith were reliable and thus chose to believe based on the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence presented to them.

Yet even so Tim is not the type to believe in direct healing through prayer. Until two months ago. He and his wife and a number of others went to Southeast Asia to encourage a group of Christians in the underground church in a closed access country. A woman came to him and asked her to pray for her due to a noticable physical impairment. He laid his hands on her and prayed and to Tim's astonishment the woman was visibly healed. The impairment was no more. This is one of millions of examples of clear evidence that what you label "supernatural," but we know is part of the true reality of existence which goes beyond what can be seen and observed with the naked eye.

The Bible clearly and perfectly describes the condition of human beings in all our beauty and at the same time all our ugliness. It addresses perfectly the problem of evil. In a world that denies God and promotes "survival of the fittest," the idea of evil or wrongdoing would be a logical fallacy in and of itself because it would then be only natural to act selfishly or in one's own self-interest. The Bible also describes in perfect detail how we can get beyond our selfishness and cohabitate in loving cooperation with others.

As to the Bible's other descriptions of reality of existence, The Genesis One account of the beginning of the universe and the earth (although extremely abbreviated and written over 3500 years ago by someone who supposedly did not have enough scientific information or understanding) lays out in perfect logical step-by-step order how the elements and the bodies of the heavens and the atmosphere around the earth as well as all other things observed in our solar system had to formulate in order for life to be sustainable on the earth.

With the recent confirmation of the Higgs' Bosom, some would like to announce ding-dong we can finally conclude that God is not, there is not need for him to exist and in fact this is added proof that he does not exist. Are you kidding me? The Higgs Bosom (if they did indeed observe it) is the greatest confirmation of the existence of a Designing Engineer yet discovered. That so-called God particle supposedly provides all the information of life and exist. How complex that particle would need to be to contain all the information and development properties of the universe. The probability of such a particle existing in and of its own is astronomical and beyond the experience of human beings. The Higgs Bosom gives greater confirmation of Thomas Aquinas' and William Paley's logical arguments for the reality of God.

Finally, the tomb is empty and Jesus presented himself to over 500 eyewitnesses with at least six providing written eyewitnesses accounts of interacting with him after he came back to life. As yet, no one has been able to present physical evidence to prove otherwise. They have tried to use logic and conjecture due to "empirical" evidence that people do not rise from the dead. But, you cannot use the scientific method to confirm or deny a historical event. There are so many one-offs in the history of life on the earth that it is impossible to say this or that thing did not happen without having been there.

In the end, my faith is no more blind than yours because I see evidence of God everywhere I go and my vision of reality is much more expansive than yours. I and other Christians like me and even other theists who do not adhere to the Christian faith are far open more to the possibilities for what reality may truly consist of.

And, it is a logical fallacy to attempt to prove or claim that something does not or never did exist.

I love discussions like this...I am willing to be wrong...and willing to and have considered that God does not exist...I am a finite human being with limited intellectual capacity... even so I have examined the evidence presented to me and I can say with more than reasonable certainty that God is the basis of the reality in which we live. If the world is cruel to its inhabitants, it is because we have chosen to deny God and live and act according to our own narrow-minded self-interests.


Fuller-Life profile image

Fuller-Life 3 years ago from Washington, DC

Nice argument, except it deliberately leaves out historical facts about the violence of the Roman Empire. It leaves out facts about religious persecution, and assumes that Jesus could just walk away and be safe. Often people fail to distinguish the historical Jesus from the religious Jesus who has been transformed and misrepresented today. You read the text with a biased view of the context. Your understanding of mental health can easily be misapplied to anyone including yourself. From your writing, one can equally deduce denialism, pessimism and sociopathic traits, which others may interpret as mental health issues. You don't seem to have stable emotions or care about how others will feel by your choice of words. Nonetheless, your argument presents are very interesting thesis that would be great to investigate. Particularly making a distinction between the image we have of Jesus and the real historical Jesus who was a freedom fighter rather than an eschatological Messiah. Thanks for great writing.


bredies profile image

bredies 3 years ago from New Zealand

A great article followed by an interesting debate.

My thoughts are not worth airing - I am too simple minded.

Enjoyed the hub immensely.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ecoggins:

I touched on a few of those pieces of "evidence" for Christianity in this hub: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Happy-East...

Again, the naturalistic explanations are much more straightforward and logical than the supernaturalistic ones.

With supernaturalism, all things are possible. You can justify or posit pretty much anything and there is no way or proving you wrong because there is no common standard of evidence.

Obviously, if someone had magical healing powers the whole world would know about it by now. And it would be repeatable and testable (but then, no longer "magical"), which your friend's story is not.

"The Bible clearly and perfectly describes the condition of human beings in all our beauty and at the same time all our ugliness."

I disagree with this statement, as well as your other statements about what the Bible offers. The Bible offers legitimation for many, many different world views and value systems. Which is why it has been the inspiration and justification for everyone from Torquemada to Augustine, from Bartolomeu de las Casas to American slave owners, from the Ku Klux Klan to Martin Luther King Jr.

There is something in the Bible for everyone, no matter your specific beliefs or priorities in life. It contradicts itself everywhere, both between Old and New Testaments, and within the Testaments. Whether Catholic or Baptist, Coptic or Russian Orthodox, they are all inspired by the Bible. Whether traditionalists against gay marriage, or New Agers in favor of gay marriage--they all find support in the Bible.

Moreover, which "Bible"? There are many versions, editions and translations. And yet in spite of all this, we are supposed to believe this is the "one, true, perfect word of God"?

It's also surprising that you would say the Bible offers anything useful on the scientific question of how the world was formed, etc. It has been shown to be useless (or worse, destructive) on such topics.

"And, it is a logical fallacy to attempt to prove or claim that something does not or never did exist."

I have never claimed any such thing. I have only said that there is no evidence for God or other such ideas.

"In the end, my faith is no more blind than yours because I see evidence of God everywhere I go and my vision of reality is much more expansive than yours."

That is two non-sequiturs in one. The fact that you "see evidence for God everywhere" does not mean your faith is "less blind" than mine (assuming my faith is blind). And the fact that your "vision of reality is more expansive than mine" does not mean your faith is "less blind" either.

This also assumes your vision of reality is more expansive. For this to be true, you must show that reality indeed includes the things you think it includes, which you have not demonstrated.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Fuller-life:

I assure you my emotions are quite stable. There is no emotional content in this article as I am not using exclamations, insults, colorful language or other indicators of emotionalism. This would be an emotional way of writing:

"F*** JESUS!! JESUS WAS AN IDIOT AND A LIAR!!! GRRRR!!"

I don't write that way.

"It leaves out facts about religious persecution, and assumes that Jesus could just walk away and be safe."

There is no such assumption in the article. I am fully aware of the religious persecution of the Roman Empire.

"You read the text with a biased view of the context."

I could say the same thing about you. The only bias I have is toward naturalism, which certainly anyone would have the first time they read the Bible if they are coming at it with a fresh perspective (i.e. not already raised or believing in a Christian world view).

"From your writing, one can equally deduce denialism, pessimism and sociopathic traits..."

Lol, how do you figure that?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Bredies, thank you, I'm glad you liked it!


Watresh 3 years ago

Interesting argue. Even more interesting comments. Much respect to the author for maintaining a logical and consistent approach when responding to critics.

I'd also like to say, though I'm an atheist, much respect to @Ecoggins for a well thought out, open-minded perspective. I wish more Christians discussed their beliefs with opposition as logically. Well done, Sir.


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

"Your friend's story is not repeatable." My friends story is only one of countless others like it... It has been repeated over and over again from the beginning of human existence. The refusal to recognize as such is merely based on one's presupposition. You say natural - supernatural; we say subnatural and natural. The extreme groups you mention are those who pick and choose the verses that support their violent and extreme ends rather than take the whole Bible in its entirety.


sanjay-sonawani profile image

sanjay-sonawani 3 years ago from Pune, India.

Great read! Almost all saints and prophets must have been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In Hindu religion too we can find similar cases about saints. But calling them crazy would be blasphemy for the faithful society!


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Watresh-- Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

Ecoggins:

But can your friend's powers be repeated and tested in an isolated and controlled environment, like other medical practices?

If not, the story is no more persuasive than a ghost story.

You can call them extreme groups who pick and choose, but that does not constitute a rebuttal to their position. Why is your particular interpretation of the Bible better than theirs? In any case, they would say the same thing about you--that you are the one picking and choosing to fit a particular value system (in your case, a modernist perspective that values peace and equality for human beings), and they have the more robust interpretation.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Sanjay:

Thank you! Indeed, most people don't want to think of themselves as being followers of someone who is mentally unbalanced lol. But in any case, like I said, even if someone suffers from such a condition, they can still make a positive contribution, which I would argue Jesus did in some ways. Same with John Nash.


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

After Secularist10 dies and is buried will those who come after be able to verify that you ever existed? Will your life and every aspect of it be repeatable and testable in an isolated and controlled environment in such a way as the outcomes will be absolutely the same each time the experiment is conducted? Once the life of secularist10 expires will the same exact secularist10 ever again be found wondering the earth? Can Abraham Lincoln's life be replicated over and over and over again in an isolated and controlled environment so that the Emancipation Proclamation is signed and the Gettysburg address delivered in exactly the same way every time the experiment is conducted. The answer is no. But there is plenty of evidence of human beings like Abraham Lincoln or Secularist10 who grew up in similar conditions who showed the same tendencies to think and act as they thought and acted given those similar conditions. In the same way, there are volumes of journals both published and private that have recorded specific answers to prayer including healing so as to conclude that events like my friends experience and those recorded in the Bible about Jesus and his disciples are more than ghost stories. But, folks are free to blind themselves of those facts due to their chosen set of presuppositions.

The values of peace and human equality were espoused long before the modernist era. Jesus elevated the value of all to equal status in the sight of God including (a) women; (b) children; (c) the infirm including the untouchables with leprosy; (d) the poor; and (e) common sinners. Even in Genesis Chapter 1 God declares male and female equally made in the image of God. It was not until after the fall of man through rebellion to God's one restriction that the struggle between male and female began with each vying to control the destiny of their homes. Jesus sacrificed himself to pay the penalty for all human beings in order that the created order might be restored through forgiveness and reconciliation. Paul wrote that in the kindgom of God there is no distinction between male or female, slave or freeman, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile. Yet, God will not force anyone to live according to his preferred pattern. Human beings have it in them through the image of God written in their hearts to live in a way that values all. We simply choose to put our own self-interests before the interests of others.


demonfort007 profile image

demonfort007 3 years ago from The Tropics, USA

I won't tell you I will pray for you because I wont. Most Christians do not know their own bible but you do not understand the bible either or you wouldn't write with such hatered. The misunderstandings of the church started with the watering down of the church in the 1850s and that same group turned into the aethiests. There is not one word in teh bible that is not true. BUT it is a history of Gods children and was directed towards them. You are clearly not his so one can not accept anything from you but blashhemy and hatered. I'm dyslexic and I already know my spelling is poor. but thank you. and the name is De'Monfort if I had known it would be seen as it is above I would not had used my last name. It is french and means the refuge on the hill before you get smart.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ecoggins:

Thank you for the fan mail, I appreciate it.

You described a medical procedure--healing someone. That is a very narrow and specific thing to test. It is inordinately less complex than an entire human life. So that comparison is not legitimate.

We are able to verify that dead people existed through many means--birth records, death records, the things they wrote or created during their life, sometimes even footage of them. Although certainly the further back in history you go, the harder it is to verify that someone existed (which is why some argue that Jesus did not exist in the first place, but that's another whole topic).

"there are volumes of journals both published and private that have recorded specific answers to prayer including healing"

All of the accounts ever written together do not remotely compensate for the vast, vast number of prayers that have been made throughout the eons by billions of people. If say 1% of all prayers that ever been made have been answered, that is not enough to overwhelm the naturalistic explanations and sheer chance (and it is not 1%, probably far, far less than that).

And of course a happy coincidence is more likely to be remembered and recorded, and therefore given "meaning," than a two minute prayer that went "unanswered" and was forgotten a week later, never to be remembered again.

In addition, members of other religions (Hinduism, for example) also report having their prayers answered. If Christianity is true and its God is the only supernatural power, how can that be? Perhaps the Hindus are mistaken? But if the Hindus are mistaken in their analysis of prayers, then how do we know that the Christians are not also mistaken?

There's a nifty little idea called "confirmation bias" that explains much of this. Everyone is subject to it, which is why we need a process that is objective as possible to get at the truth.

Again, you are interpreting the Bible in a certain way based on your assumptions. The book provides legitimation to countless belief systems and value systems as I said. And you still have not specified which Bible, out of all the versions created and translated by humans, you prefer.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Demonfort:

"I won't tell you I will pray for you because I wont."

Darn! What a letdown. Lol.

I understand the Bible perfectly well. And I am not writing with hatred. Do you see the phrase "I hate Jesus" anywhere in this article? I am exploring an idea. It may be politically incorrect and might ruffle some people's feathers, but that is a small price to pay for a free and open discussion.

Atheists existed long before the 1850s.

"There is not one word in the bible that is not true."

Really? How about the story of Noah? Someone mentioned that earlier. Basic science and common sense tell us that it is impossible for that story to be true. It would have been impossible for an individual in the ancient Near East to recruit two of every single animal on the entire planet, put them into a boat for over a month, and then have each of those couples repopulate the world.

"the name is De'Monfort if I had known it would be seen as it is above I would not had used my last name. It is french and means the refuge on the hill before you get smart."

Haha, relax! I don't care what anybody's name is. You should be a little more open-minded before assuming the worst in people.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

you don't even have to go back as far as noah. Who fist went to the tomb to find Jesus resurrected? Was he crucified before or during the passover? Who was Joseph's father? Did they flee to Egypt after his birth or return to Nazareth? These are all answered differently, depending on which gospel account you read, and they're mutually exclusive. That means one of them is wrong - and therefore not true.


Man of Strength profile image

Man of Strength 3 years ago from Orlando, Fl

A few days back, I asked about Noah's ark. Half kidding, half serious I asked with all the animals on board the Ark, who cleaned all that poop up?


KenDeanAgudo profile image

KenDeanAgudo 3 years ago from Tiwi, Philippines

Actually that kind of allegation was totally a Satan works. People nowadays assumes they know all about the world but they are fools enough for no one ca be as smart as God


jlpark profile image

jlpark 3 years ago from New Zealand

Interesting take on Jesus, Secularist.

If one steps back from the 'defense" of Jesus and just looks at the statements presented without emotion clouding everything - eg look at it as those it was "George" rather than Jesus, there are some interesting points, and conclusions.

I've always wondered why we take those who claim God spoke to them, and told them to become a priest, prophet, etc at their word - but that when someone tells us that God told them to do 'such and such' that possibly has no religious significance, they are labelled schizophrenic. Who are we to judge who was hearing what from whom?

Thanks for the interesting discussion being created also. I like it when someone looks at something from a different view.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@secularist:

I could not wait to read your dissection of the Prophet Mohammad's mental status.....Oh did you say that is not at all forthcoming? Understandably so... I suppose. Bravura performance, like this hub can only occur once in a lifetime, considering the possible untoward sequelae of such a brazen endeavour.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

JMcFarland-- indeed, the simplest questions are the most cutting. They can't all be right, by definition.

Man of Strength--presumably one or several of the crew members aboard the Ark did that job. But with literally thousands of animals to tend to, it seems like that alone would be an impossible task for a crew the size of the Ark's. Just creating all the cages, restraints, figuring out feeding schedules, grooming/ cleaning needs, etc--would be a logistical nightmare.

And what about the carnivorous animals? A carnivore can only eat other animals, which means that whatever creature it eats, there would have to be more than 2 of those, to keep them alive for the whole time. Therefore there could not have been literally 2 of each animal. And that just scratches the surface, of course, lol.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ken--if you read the Bible, God himself doesn't seem all too bright.

JLPark--Thank you, I appreciate it. Indeed, there seem to be different standards for saints and prophets compared to regular people that we see and interact with today. It's quite funny that most people can't see that.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--back for more tedium I see. It's starting to look like trolling now.

You are truly an expert in speaking about things of which you know nothing. It just so happens that when I had the idea for this hub, I immediately thought about the same hub for Muhammad as well. Just for kicks, why don't you try to start a new hub titled "Was Muhammad Crazy?" You will see the title is already reserved. That's because it's mine, as yet unpublished. I will get around to it, I've been taking a break from Hub Pages for this year so far.

As I have said elsewhere, I've found that my hubs dealing with Christianity/ Jesus and related topics are always much more popular than those dealing with Islam.

Keep jumping to conclusions though, it's entertaining at the least.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularist:

Well I'd have to thank my lucky stars when that happens when it happens. Send me an invitation to the grand announcement. Meanwhile I'm not holding my breath. Something to do with folks suddenly getting the jitters when it comes to doing a nut-job on the prophet. Lucky for you, the only thing that you'd get from folks like me (after reading the nut-job of a hub you wrote on Jesus) are darts and arrows that neither lacerate nor eviscerate.... literally that is.


ecoggins profile image

ecoggins 3 years ago from Corona, California

JMcFarland you wrote -

"you don't even have to go back as far as noah. Who fist went to the tomb to find Jesus resurrected? Was he crucified before or during the passover? Who was Joseph's father? Did they flee to Egypt after his birth or return to Nazareth? These are all answered differently, depending on which gospel account you read, and they're mutually exclusive. That means one of them is wrong - and therefore not true."

Four eyewtinesses to the same historical event are most likely not going to give the exact same accounts of a given incident.

The ironic part in your argument is that days ago you pointed me to evidence that disputes ideas in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In the argument against the evidence presented in Chapter 4, the "expert" author suggested the Four Gospel accounts could not be true because they were too much alike or not enough contradictions. But, here you are arguing they cannot be true because there are too many contradictions.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

There is a difference between different PERSPECTIVES and completely different stories. John, for example, has Jesus dying on the verge of passover. The other 3 gospels have him giving the last supper as a passover meal, and he dies the day after. These are two completely different days, and they're irreconcilable. No one can die twice on two different days back to back. That means that one of the accounts is blatantly wrong. Additionally, Joseph is listed as having two different fathers in both of the gospels that contain nativity stories. That's not possible. Thirdly, either Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt, or they didn't These contradictions are mutually exclusive, unless you want to tap dance around apologetics 101 in order to try to make them make sense. If you want to try that, go ahead. but I've heard all of them before, and they simply don't add up.

If the differences were nothing more than "he wore a red tunic" as opposed to "he wore a blue tunic" then fine. Different accounts. lastly - none of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. They can't possibly be. The names (matthew, mark luke and john) were added nearly a century (or more) later on. Luke and Mark were not apostles at all. Matthew was the name of one of the apostles, but no biblical historian actually believes that matthew or john the apostles wrote the actual gospels. Dating makes it nearly impossible. Therefore, you don't have eyewitnesses. You have 2nd, 3rd or 4th-hand accounts 30-100 years after the fact. That's not reliable testimony. It's hearsay and oral tradition. That would not hold up in any court without contemporary evidence to support it.


Sean 3 years ago

secularist10 said...... Sean:

"These kinds of theories have been around for a long time. For instance, the "Bible Code" still makes an appearance now and then. The evidence is weak to put it mildly. "

However, the Bible Codes found at http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm are not related to those that have been discussed over the last decade or so.

Those that have discussed over the last decade or so, are False Bible Codes. After performing statistical analysis of these false codes, it was determined that these codes were pure rubbish, meaning they determined that these codes were False Bible Codes. After classifying these False Bible Codes as False Bible Codes, they then stated that "Bible Codes", meaning Bible Codes in general, were all just a farce.

This is no different than saying that if you find one counterfeit 20 dollar bill, one "False" bill, that means that all 20 dollar bills are obviously counterfeit as well. Lies and liars do well in today's world, such as lance Armstrong fooling the world, yet at the same time truths stand little chance at all.

But for those whom are open mined, go the the web page and then click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the webpage take you on a webpage tour of True Bible Codes, and do so via automatic web page scrolling and complete audio coverage.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 3 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

This is a no true scottsman fallacy. Of COURSE all of the previous bible codes were false ones, because they disagree with yours. Yours, meanwhile, is the one TRUE bible code - because you believe it to be true. That does not make it true.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--I wouldn't exactly call myself "lucky" for receiving your pointless comments. Why not actually address the topic of the hub instead of ad hominem after ad hominem. The more you talk, the more you undermine your own credibility.

Sean:

Your Bible code, like all the others, does not have any logic or evidence supporting it. There is no rational reason why we should choose your code over the others. You say "statistical analysis" disproved the other codes. So what? Who says that statistics have anything to do with it? Why do you give such weight to statistical analysis? Why not some other kind of analysis? A study was done of another very large text--it might have been "Crime and Punishment"--and they found all kinds of predictions and forecasts embedded in "code" form in that text as well. Yet nobody considers "Crime and Punishment" to be a holy book.


CR Rookwood profile image

CR Rookwood 3 years ago from Moonlight Maine

Interesting article, I hadn't heard of this idea. A couple of thoughts though: In his most recent book, "Hallucinations", neurologist Olivers Saks shows that hallucinations are a very common human experience and not usually associated with mental illness. It goes against popular belief, nevertheless, he documents it well. Secondly, paranoid schizophrenia is a debilitating condition that is generally recognized by anyone who encounters it as an illness. When John Nash developed it, it didn't take that long for people close to him to see he was sick. Last but not least, there's a thin line indeed between religious experience and mental illness, and between genius and mental illness.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this. I am not a right wing Christian by at least a few miles, but I like to think of the Gospels as a series of allegorical tales, not a historical record of a person's life. In that regard the teachings are basically about kindness and compassion. Yeah there's some weird stuff in there too, but the we're talking some very old writing here that's been translated and retranslated.

Thanks for a thought-provoking piece. Thumbs up.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularist:

I have already told you that I consider your hub, a nut-job, a malfeasance.. and I am won't to give it any credence by discussing it with any seriousness.

Having said that... here is my counterpoint, since you are asking for it.... The Sermon on the Mount. Your thesis was that Jesus was insane because , based on a few biblical passages, you think that Jesus follows the accepted definition of Paranoid Schizophrenia. Please read the entire Sermon, and if you think that those words could emanate from a paranoid schizophrenic, then I would have to start believing that you, based on my reading of your hubs and various forum posts, are a consummate devil's advocate...a narcissist of the highest level.


mercuryservices profile image

mercuryservices 3 years ago from Honolulu, Hawaii

The quote by Robert M Pirsig says it all. "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." This is an interesting take on the mental state of Jesus and a well written hub.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Mercury:

Isn't it interesting that Secularist would quote Robert M. Pirsig, in his introduction to his hub discussing his thesis that Jesus was a paranoid schizophrenic? It turns out Mr. Pirsig, was himself diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and received ECT as part of his therapy. Now if Secularists say in no uncertain terms that Jesus' insanity is good enough reason for Christianity to "collapse", could we then say that Mr. Pirsig's insanity was one reason why he said the statement that Secularists quoted....thus would also 'collapse".


likehoney profile image

likehoney 3 years ago from Portland, Oregon

Very interesting. It gives me a lot to think about....if the bible is a true recording of what Jesus was supposed to have thought and said then your point is very strong. If on the other hand it is made up of myths/facts and self promoting additions them Jesus may not have displayed these behaviors. Either way it leaves doubt. Interesting read.


platinumOwl4 profile image

platinumOwl4 3 years ago

The question should be, did Jesus ever exist in the first place. Archeologist or now confirming that the majority of what is in the bible is myth and copies of Ancient story that had been in existence for thousands of years.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

CR:

Thanks, I appreciate it.

John Nash lived in a very different time and place than Jesus. The ancient Near East was a world steeped in mysticism and supernaturalism, whereas John Nash's world had rationalism and modern science. There are certain cultures in the world where hallucinatory drugs are taken as part of a spiritual experience; yet the same drugs in an urban American context would be taken only by deadbeats and social outcasts. So context is everything.

I agree that the Bible has valuable philosophical and ethical lessons to offer. If only people could look at it rationally, on those terms, on the same level as, say, Plato or Socrates or Kant. It's investing the book with "holiness" that causes so many problems.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--if this is such a "nut-job" why are you still here? Unless you are afraid there might be a grain of truth here. I did not say that Jesus definitely was mentally unstable, I specifically said "if" he was unstable.

The Sermon on the Mount is irrelevant. I specifically said in the article that mental disturbance does not preclude a person from contributing many positive things in their field, John Nash being a good example. And that applies to Robert Pirsig as well.

The point is not that Jesus didn't contribute anything positive, for he did. But it does throw doubt on his "divinity."

Now go ahead, call me a nut job and a narcissist again (not sure where the latter comes from, but whatever).


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Mercury--Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Like honey--Exactly, doubt is created either way. But we have to take a step back and look at the text critically to realize it.

Platinum--I'm one to believe Jesus did exist as a person. Although no doubt his life history was grossly exaggerated and embellished significantly by the whirlwind of religious fervor that ensued in those years.

Khairat--Thank you, glad you liked it.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularist:

I re-read your hub and the way you discussed the issue left no doubt in my mind that you believe Jesus was insane, despite your 2 rather limp/pallid disclaimers. Jesus and Robert Pirsig, must be so releived to read what you wrote especially the part that says, their insanity have some kind of a redeeming social value.

I called you a narcissist because a narcissist typically believes he can argue either side of the debating chasm and thinks he can get away with it. Now the other folks on HubPages might be nice enough to give you a pass on that, but I won't.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--You are just projecting your own strange assumptions as usual. I make it clear in the first paragraph of the concluding section that we can never know the truth of Jesus' mental state. My position has been consistent throughout the whole time.

Well, Jesus has been dead for thousands of years so I doubt he is capable of being "relieved" about anything. And I doubt Robert Pirsig cares what you or I say about him. On narcissism, at least look up the definition of a word before you attack someone with it.

Unless you have something important to say in your next comment, I'll just ignore in the interest of not feeding the troll and encouraging your childish and immature nonsense. You just want attention, and I'm not interested.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@Secularists:

Please, if I want attention I can get it without having to read your mendacious evasions and apologetics, of which your statement:

"My position has been consistent throughout the whole time" is a prime example.

Now let me dissect your narcissism. Your title "Was Jesus Crazy" was meant to give you an exit route, so if someone, via reading the text of the hub questioned the validity of your thesis, you can simply say, paraphrasing: well I did not say with certainty that Jesus was insane, only that perhaps he was mentally unbalanced. That you have done.

If in fact you have some doubts about the mental stability of Jesus, then why title your hub with a question, then proceed to eviscerate His mental capacity via wild conjectures and speculations, based soley on your skewed reading of some biblical passages.

Your attempt to soften the harshness of your vapid thesis, by saying that despite His insanity, Jesus had some social redeeming value was another escape route designed to placate some folks on Hub pages that may not easily take to what you are proposing.

You remind me of the character played by Leonardo di Caprio in that movie, "Catch Me If You Can". A narcissist of the highest order.

Giving yourself those two escape hatches are classic modus opernadi of a narcissist...


bizarrett81 profile image

bizarrett81 3 years ago from Maine

Oh my... well, you know. I couldn't even look at any comments past "I will pray for you", because I knew I would end up spewing a novel on your comments section.

I don't care if I get grief or even prayers (by all means, talk to your ceiling as much as you want, it makes no difference to me) from others for this but: I applaud you for writing this. As believers have their faith, non believers have their reasons, and I completely understand this.

I laughed when I first started reading this because I have long said " Sometimes I wonder if Jesus was simply that first crazy guy, you know, the ones you see walking around Manhatten, quoting the bible and saying they are prophets" Perhaps he was just the first, and since it was a time of uncertainty and chaos where everyone was looking for answers to philosophical questions they hadn't evolved enough to understand yet, and answers to why horrible things were happening, people just believed him.

Fantastic Hub, I say. But then again, I am a heathen.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Bizarrett--From one heathen to another, thank you! You have yet to earn the title of "narcissist" though :)

I always find it amusing that many religious people can see aberrant behavior in today's cults and odd new religions, yet when it comes to their own traditions and the earliest adherents of their belief systems, suddenly the rules change. The preposterous becomes the miraculous. A double standard with cosmic power, lol.


Joe Salmon 117 profile image

Joe Salmon 117 3 years ago from Newport, Isle of Wight

I am a Christian (modern version) and this is a really interesting read, especially as I am an aspiring psychologist, great debate!


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Joe--Thanks for reading and glad you found it interesting!


AmbitiousMarketer profile image

AmbitiousMarketer 3 years ago from England

With many people today and throughout history claiming to be the Son Of God it has always made me wonder whether Jesus was one of the first to openly admit it. Also, Jesus was Jesus of Nazareth correct me if Im wrong but weren't there many other Jesus' of so and so?

Note to Author would you mind doing a hub on why male dominated the biblical stories:

God is a He

Jesus is a male

Mark, Matthew Luke and John - no women authors and there have been 50+ scriptures (versions) by different authors all male however Constantine created this New Testament under the 4 authors above

No female priests, bishops, pastors, leaders etc

The word Man was used a lot to describe mankind

Women were second class citizens in religious times, would God be unhappy now that women are equal?


SAM ELDER profile image

SAM ELDER 3 years ago from Home

When a person talks to God, it's ok , but when God talks to person, most likely it's mental disorder.


likehoney profile image

likehoney 3 years ago from Portland, Oregon

AmbitiousMarketer:

Good point!!


d.william profile image

d.william 3 years ago from Somewhere in the south

Great read.

The number of comments are indicative of a well written hub.

I wrote one along these lines, but you went way beyond mine - a virtual sequel. I put the same connotations on this phenomenon in our history, but with a more detailed explanation of why this happened in those uncertain times.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Who-was-Je...

I will link yours with mine if you don't mind.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey

While I do believe that Jesus was the Christ, and having come from an agnostic to believer, I will say your Hub is well written and interesting. You must admit that you have to come from a point of non-belief to make your accusations of insanity. Denial of His divinity is requisite to your argument. If He is who He claimed to be, then all your arguments are moot, agreed?

As a side note, in reference to the ark/animal question...if, as some have discussed, the earth was a super continent prior to, and possibly shortly after the great deluge, then this could explain the availability of each "kind" to enter the ark...especially if God was directing then to it's location. Not a proven fact, but an interesting take.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Wow now this is another scenario of possible truth. I wrote a hub and I will certainly link yours with mine. It also has to do with Demons and Mental Illnesses and the symptoms of many of those illnesses and some videos to see what a Grand Mal Epileptic Seizure looks like. I voted this up and interesting and useful. I will go add this to my hub here: http://ladyguinevere.hubpages.com/hub/The-Truth-Ab...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ambitious:

Jesus was certainly not the first to claim, or be referred to as, a relative of a divine entity. The same can be said of most other elements of the Jesus story--the resurrection, the miracles, the virgin birth, and others. They all came before. What was unique about Jesus was that all those elements were combined into a single story with a single man.

As far as the gender bias in religion, certainly it's because society at the time was dominated by men, a strict and rigid patriarchy was in place, and women enjoyed only second-class status or less. These tendencies then bled over into religious beliefs. It would make little sense of a male-dominated society to worship a female deity. This did happen in some cultures, but the vast majority had male-centric religions. It's an interesting topic though, I will think about writing a hub on that.

"Women were second class citizens in religious times, would God be unhappy now that women are equal?"

There are indications in the Bible that he might, in the family laws of the Old Testament for instance. But then there are indications that gender equality is right in line with God's plan, depending on which part of the Bible you look in.

In any case, there are certainly many religious traditionalists today that would love to turn back the clock on gender relations.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

D William--Thank you very much. I will check out your hub. Yes, please feel free to link!


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Mitch:

Thank you very much. Of course, if Jesus really was divine, then that would change everything. But that's if he was divine, which is another debate altogether, and which I of course do not accept.

Lady Guinevere:

Thanks for coming, and I'm glad you found it interesting. I will certainly check out your hub.


ananceleste profile image

ananceleste 3 years ago from California

I take my hat off to you Sir. It take guts to publish something like this in conservative America. As a spiritual person ( not religious), I have to accept all possibilities and still, to me, the message is the important thing. As a researcher and rational human being, it would be pretentious from me to dismiss something that is a scientific valid argument. How do I know ? Simple, I am married to one. My husband has a specific type of Schizophrenia called Paranoid Schizophrenia with religious delirium. The patient is convinced that He is a Christ like figure, messianic at that. In other words, they think that they are the redeemer of the world or Jesus Christ. To add insult to injury, my husband knows most of the bible by heart. And that is why it took five psychiatrists,two hospitalization and him trying to set himself on fire to have the full scope of his conviction. "God" was telling him that he was the lamb of God.(do the math) I am WITNESS to these events. 20 years of treatment,medication and moments of clarity has helped him realize and discern that He is indeed sick. And yes, we are a spiritual family, back then very devout. But that did not change the fact that He is indeed sick. Actually the more I researched this specific form of schizophrenia, the more I found about the vast number of sufferers of this illness.

I could name 10 very public cases of the bat. As with any school of faith, it can be emotionally damaging to any individual to question their leaders or view of God. This is an extremely delicate subject. If it were black and white, there would be no wars, right?

Now to the case at hand, was He or wasn't He? Do you think this would matter to believers? Hell to the no. Is trying to convince the world that the bible is a complete work of fiction! This will never take place. In any religion. True or not, it makes no difference to the faithful. Besides, what good would come from that? Break hearts ? The greater good is the key here, not to prove something right. Take care my friend.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 3 years ago from New York City Author

Ananceleste:

I'm glad you liked it, and thank you for giving your very personal and very thought-provoking story.

It would not surprise me at all if conditions like this have been more common through history than normally thought. Especially because in millennia past, we did not have the benefit of modern science, modern medicine or modern psychological analysis. And there was the overall climate of supernaturalism that made people more likely to view aberrant behavior as some kind of spiritual or magical phenomenon (the belief in demon possessions being another good example).

The good thing is that evidence and logic has become clearer and clearer in recent decades and centuries that traditional Christianity has no leg to stand on. As a result, the ranks of the "faithful" have diminished, and continue to diminish.

I am one to believe that the truth is always worthy of pursuit, regardless of whether it hurts people's feelings or makes them feel uncomfortable. Sometimes some emotional turmoil--or even social turmoil--is a small price to pay for greater freedom and enlightenment.


allan 3 years ago

There's an interesting lecture by Robert Sapolsky of Stanford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

He talks about the connection between shamenism and 'metamagical schizotypalism'. This is regarded as a mild form of schizophrenia. This seems to be genetic as they tend to be from families where schizophrenia is apparent. It's a long watch but he gets into religious rituals being probably started by OCD individuals. He also mentions the similarities between S. Pauls' experiences and the experiences of people with a form of epilepsy.


Jordan Garrett 2 years ago

Secular10,

Here's a link you may enjoy. I haven't really sunk my teeth into it yet, but I find the idea of a mentally ill Jesus to be very interesting and a lot more inspiring in some respects than the Jesus who is shoved down the throats of people in contemporary culture (Take the supposed "Temptation". If He could never be tempted as God incarnate, then it was completely pointless for Satan to even try, and Jesus' overcoming Satan was completely contrived.). I think in some respects, there are certainly ways in which one can learn to broaden their perspectives from the mentally ill, both as it regards spiritual and secular matters (many famous scientists, for instance, your example of Ronald Nash, were a little "Off"). To expand on what you said a bit as regards genius and insanity, I would say that since mentally ill people have less of a desire to conform to society and it's viewpoints by virtue of their mental disturbances that they are able to rock the boat, like Nietzsche did, like Schopenhauer did (I've heard he's depressed. Not hard to believe), like Nash did, like Socrates (I've heard that he may have been Schizophrenic. Have you heard of his "Daemon"?), etc. Whether or not somebody uses their abilities for "Good" (IE: In a way that builds up themselves and others) or Evil (IE: In a way that tears down themselves and others) is really anybody's guess, but if society learned to embrace the myriad faces of mental illness, to the extent that those people embrace prosocial and nondestructive behavior, everybody would be a lot better off for it.

Anyway, great article, and while it may be be hard for some people to swallow what you suggest, I find it no more implausible then the idea that Jesus was A) God and B) The Preexistent Son of God who exists as part of a three in one trinity. Organized religion, as the great quote at the top of your article says, is nothing than widespread insanity/delusion that demands conformity so it can exercise hegemony. Far from being a beacon of "Inviolable rights and dignity" (from the same people who promote a book that says to burn prostitutes alive and stone rebellious children. ) it has often been the handmaid of corruption, imperialism, tyranny and gratuitous suffering, and it deserves to be called out for it.


Jordan Garrett 2 years ago

I apparently forgot to include the link in my last post, Sec10, because it didn't show up. If you are interested, here it is:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/brian_holtz/tri...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Jordan--thank you, and thanks for the link.

Yes, of all the various possibilities, it is clearly much more likely that Jesus was mentally ill in some way, than he was a divine being. And I agree we tend to neglect the reality of mental illness, but it has been an important part of human experience since the beginning of civilization, and it has played a role throughout history. Muhammad, for instance, also displayed symptoms of mental illness according to the sources. And the emperor Caligula is described as insane at various times.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Jesus changed history and conquered the Ancient Roman Empire from the grave. Thousands of great architectural monuments, art works and societies were created around His philosophy. Mentally ill people don't have that kind of impact. Great inspired leaders do.

Your premise is hypocritical as you are confessed atheist but refuse to see the mental illness inherent in your self and the philosophy of sociopaths like Peter Singer and the many many other atheists of that ilk.ie you are unable to make a sound judgement regarding mental illness.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 2 years ago from Palm Springs

@Oztinato:

My point exactly when I labeled the author of this Hub, a narcissist for being so "full of himself", by in effect becoming a psychobabbler but with no credentials to speak of.


The Public Image profile image

The Public Image 2 years ago from Middleton, MA

Although this comments section looks exactly like I expected it would ("But the bible says..."), this is one of the most interesting and well-thought-out Hubs I've yet encountered. Great work.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Its not so much psychobabble as an old Freudian idea re-presented via Hub. Freud considered all religion a mental illness. Its not an original claim. Freud recanted later in life and became a believer again; and his best student and successor Carl Jung was also a believer.

The problem with this Hub's premise is the "legal insanity" evidence that atheists who are not objecting to the more bizarre atheist ideas of beastiality and infanticide do not admit that a person who practices either of these horrors is in fact " legally insane" or mentally ill. In other words they are not in position to claim someone else is insane. Both the law and the medical fraternity to not class religion or JC as insane; but they do class beastiality and infanticide as insane.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 2 years ago from Palm Springs

@Oztinato: Be that as it may, the author of this Hub has stretched the definition of narcissism to the nth degree, by writing about something he has the faintest clue about i.e. the mental status of JC. To postulate that JC was crazy from the perspective of a secularist, is like Obama postulating about ObamaCare's constitutionality from the perspective of a community organizer. Now Obama claims he is a constitutional lawyer (and has a degree in constitutional law from Harvard to prove it), which may give him an out, but Secularist could never claim to have any background in Psychiatry or Psychology... thus the babbling.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oztinato and Villarasa--unsurprisingly, instead of addressing the ideas, you both are forced to attack me personally. This is called an "ad hominem" argument, a logical fallacy.

It demonstrates you do not have anything coherent or useful to contribute, only emotional reactions.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oz:

"Jesus changed history ... Mentally ill people don't have that kind of impact."

This is simply rhetoric.

Anyway, I specifically said in the article that the man's mental deficiencies, if they existed, do not negate his contributions in other areas (such as ethics, etc).

It was not Jesus who made those changes you describe, it was his followers and believers down through the ages. Believers of other religions have also created grand monuments, artwork, culture and literature since the dawn of civilization.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

The Public Image:

Thank you! Glad you liked it.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

No ones attacking you; we are attacking the logical deficiency in the argument. Neither history, law of modern medicine class Jesus as a mad man. Instead he is classed as a revolutionary philosopher, teacher and spiritual leader.

In other words your premise doesn't hold water.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

"No ones attacking you..."

Hmmm, let's see:

Oz said:

"Your premise is hypocritical as you are confessed atheist but refuse to see the mental illness inherent in your self..."

I guess in your world, calling someone mentally ill does not constitute an attack. Maybe it's a compliment?! Haha.

Moreover I am not a "confessed atheist," I am closer to an agnostic, so your statement is flawed and misinformed anyway.

And then your friend Villarasa said:

"I labeled the author of this Hub, a narcissist..."

He even admits to attacking me personally! Lol. It's funny that he complains I have no credentials (which I never claimed to have), when clearly he does not understand what narcissism is.

But it's ok, I don't mind. I find it rather entertaining actually. Sling your arrows all you want. It just goes to further reinforce my position because it demonstrates that those on the other side must resort to emotional appeals, personal attacks and so on, in lieu of actual argumentation.

On this one substantive point:

"Neither history, law of modern medicine class Jesus as a mad man."

That is precisely what this hub seeks to explore--his mental status. We can never know for sure, of course, but the evidence is there--it comes from the Christians themselves in the form of their holy book.

As I have said repeatedly, his mental illness, if true, does not in itself take away from his positive contributions in philosophy and ethics.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

My apologies I thought you said you had a mental illness.


Sean 2 years ago

Secularist10, you said "Sean - Your Bible code ( http://goo.gl/fz4R0I ), like all the others, does not have any logic or evidence supporting it. There is no rational reason why we should choose your code over the others. You say "statistical analysis" disproved the other codes. So what? Who says that statistics have anything to do with it? Why do you give such weight to statistical analysis? Why not some other kind of analysis? A study was done of another very large text--it might have been "Crime and Punishment"--and they found all kinds of predictions and forecasts embedded in "code" form in that text as well. Yet nobody considers "Crime and Punishment" to be a holy book."

Next question: Is Secularist10 Crazy ?


Sean 2 years ago

By the way, I don't accept beliefs or disbeliefs but instead choose to search for truths. I also do not accept what my eyes tell me. I choose to be more intelligent than an eyeball. In turn in my younger days, I soon noticed that the "MOTION" that I saw going on around me in the is world, such as motion of cars, planes, people, etc, was absolutely impossible. I then, using my mind, analyzed motion and eventually understood what what really going on. I then proceeded to convert my understandings into equations. Next....off I went to the world of physics to see if my understandings related to any currently accepted laws of physics. My understandings (and equations ) were identical to Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. See http://goo.gl/fz4R0I

I used the same logic to think of how information would be encoded within the Bible. Sure enough, I found exactly what I expected to find.

See http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm

It was not a case of lengthy endless searching. Instead, I would have an idea of what to find, I then looked, and there it was. This led to knowing of what to look for next, I then looked, and there it was. This led to knowing of what to look for next, I then looked, and there it was, and so on and so on.....


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Sean--

Haha, it took you literally a YEAR to read that and come back with "are you crazy." Give me a break. Instead of addressing the points made, all you can do is attack me personally. All these personal attacks just provide more and more evidence that the other side cannot engage in rational debate and look at the facts clearly.

I guess you think of yourself as some kind of genius.

"Instead, I would have an idea of what to find, I then looked, and there it was."

Sounds like a serious case of confirmation bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


Sean 2 years ago

I don't think that I am a genius. I simply am.

"Sounds like a serious case of confirmation bias" you say. Yep, it may sound like it, but then there is also what it actually is !


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Haha, okay. Call me when you get your Nobel Prize.

"...but then there is also what it actually is"

Indeed, and what it actually is, is confirmation bias! Lol.


Joseph Gerringer profile image

Joseph Gerringer 2 years ago from Peoria, Illinois

I think you are utterly wrong! Either you have spent too much time in Psychology books or have read something you are basing all your facts on? You do not even need to go to a Bible College to learn that the Gospels are infallible and true. Jesus was and is the Son of God and every word mentioned in the Gospels is the author's best way of stating what He spoke concerning miracles, events, or His Father's commands. He was God incarnate. Any indicators you thought were mental disorders are simply His divinity being carried out as a man just like any one of us; only He has sovereignty as God does too! Read the Bible or any number of books that explain the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Sad to say anyone like you who takes a human approach to the myths and arrogant stories of Jesus; simply does not know Him for who He really is.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

As I said, no qualified person would argue that a hugely permanently influential leader such as Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi etc is insane.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Joseph:

"You do not even need to go to a Bible College to learn that the Gospels are infallible and true."

Well, this statement alone negates your credibility. If you believe that Jesus is God and the Bible is infallible, and so on, then of course you are completely buying into these myths hook, line and sinker.

Simple question (more rhetorical than anything, but just for fun): if the Bible is infallible, then why is there so much incorrect information in it?

Oz:

I reiterate once again, mental illness does not imply that an individual cannot be highly influential. There have been many influential people in history who are thought to have had mental problems, including many kings and emperors.

Moreover, the vast majority of the "influence" you are interested in was the work of Jesus' disciples and early followers, not Jesus himself.

When someone hears voices in their head, that person is called "mentally ill." If that person's name is Jesus, he is called "God."


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Secularist

you are of course free to reiterate; the fact is that nearly everyone has some degree of personality problem and/or mental illness if we include mild phobias etc.

The level of mental illness you are implying here for Jesus (and presumably many other religious leaders) is nothing short of total hallucinatory psychosis. There are no worldwide leaders of such import as Jesus and other famous religious leaders like Buddha etc who suffered from such chronic psychosis. Yes there were/are artists etc who had small contributions to make but as far as Jesus goes we are looking at a person with an IQ greater than many ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians (is we take a purely materialistic view).


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

"There are no worldwide leaders of such import as Jesus and other famous religious leaders like Buddha etc who suffered from such chronic psychosis."

You don't know that.

To the contrary, the behavior of people like Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and others is right in line with various mental problems.

"the fact is that nearly everyone has some degree of personality problem and/or mental illness if we include mild phobias etc."

That is not true at all. The vast majority of people do not have mental problems of that kind (although things may be changing here in the US since so many people are on medications they don't need, but that's besides the point).

Where did you get the idea that Jesus had a higher IQ than Greek philosophers? Lol! The IQ test didn't even exist at that time.

Having a mental illness does not necessarily prevent a person from functioning normally in most situations in their lives.

In fact there are tons of people who have had mental illnesses who nevertheless are/ were able to function as normal members of society for most of their lives.

John Nash is a perfect example of this.

There are only a handful of mental illnesses that genuinely prevent a person from functioning normally.

Experiencing hallucinations and other symptoms do not necessarily create debilitating conditions of that kind.

If you look into the research on these conditions, you will see that.


Anthony Isaac Wells 2 years ago

Jesus is clearly the King of the New World Order and of the New Testament, Nebuchadnezzar while was the King of the Old World order . David is the King of the Hebrews it is David that will be the King of the world, A kingdom that will be made without hands, The New world order begin with Jesus.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Secularist

I have looked into it: if a person is in a state of hallucinatory psychosis they are unable to relate to the world around them.

The ideas and actions of Jesus had a greater effect on changing society and mankind more than any former ideas (in the "west") hence we can posit His IQ was enormous and beyond any ordinary human being.

John Nash did not conquer the world with a new theory of love; he made some advances in maths after a lot of therapy and drugs.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oz:

Clearly you have not looked into it enough. Paranoid schizophrenics are often able to function as normal members of society. So yes, they are able to relate to the world around them, even through their delusions.

You should my article before commenting on it.

"The ideas and actions of Jesus had a greater effect on changing society and mankind more than any former ideas..."

This is your opinion, not a fact.

"... hence we can posit His IQ was enormous and beyond any ordinary human being."

That is an absurd non sequitur. Just because someone has had significant influence does not therefore mean they have superior IQ, much less an IQ "beyond any ordinary human being."

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this until you will get it: it was not Jesus himself who propagated those ideas. It was his followers and disciples.

Jesus' ideas were radical for the time. But there were countless other prophets and spiritual leaders in the Mediterranean world at that time who also had radical and iconoclastic beliefs, each with their own cult-like following, just like Jesus. These are basic historical facts.

"John Nash did not conquer the world with a new theory of love;"

Neither did Jesus.

"...[Nash] made some advances in maths after a lot of therapy and drugs."

Nope.

"Some advances"? The man is considered a genius. If you are going to offer an opinion, at least make it an informed one.

Honestly, if you did even the most basic of research on what you are talking about we would not have to have these unproductive exchanges.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Secularist

without copious amounts of modern day anti-psychotic medication and therapy and all kinds of modern day help, a severely psychotic person can not relate to day to day reality. Look at places like "Bedlam" and the history of the first mental institutions prior to modern medicine: they were filled with tormented souls who could barley survive day to day who walked zombie like or screaming.

John Nash had electro-shock therapy many times; pills; psycho-analysis therapy; a supportive family; a supportive university; hospitalization etc prior to getting out back in society. If Nash lived prior to modern medicine/therapy he would have been running naked and screaming covered in his own feces and have made little or no contribution to his field.

When an actual psychotic "hears voices" they are in a deep psychotic state and can't even relate to their surroundings without the above mentioned modern day techniques. When a true inspired religious leader hears the voice of god they are in a totally functional state and have been known to change society for time immemorial.

Jesus, it was recorded, healed mentally ill people.

I can see your struggle with this: we have identified two totally separate states of being here 1. psychotic and dysfunctional (unless modern day therapy and drugs are applied), and 2. religiously inspired totally functional gifted individuals who changed history.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Once again, you are simply wrong on the facts. You assume that a paranoid schizophrenic is deeply incapacitated. That is not necessarily the case at all.

You say:

"If Nash lived prior to modern medicine/therapy he would have been running naked and screaming covered in his own feces and have made little or no contribution to his field."

This is a patently absurd statement. It is absurd firstly because that is not the nature of this condition, as I have already said many times to you.

And secondly, Nash was already doing his work before the mental illness set in.

Oztinato, please, I implore you, DO SOME RESEARCH. You need to learn the facts.

Mental illness is a very broad and diverse phenomenon. It's not just all "loonies in straight jackets drooling and urinating on themselves" or whatever narrow-minded assumptions you seem to have.

Here, I will even help you along, these quotes are from the Wikipedia article on John Nash ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr. ) to get you started:

"After graduating in 1948 with Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics, he accepted a scholarship to Princeton ... Nash's advisor... wrote a letter of recommendation consisting of a single sentence: "This man is a genius.""

"Nash earned a doctorate in 1950 with a 28-page dissertation on non-cooperative games. The thesis... contained the definition and properties of what would later be called the "Nash equilibrium". ... it won Nash the Nobel prize in economics in 1994."

"Nash experienced the first symptoms of mental illness in early 1959,..."

Thus, his contributions mostly occurred BEFORE the actual onset of his illness, and in the earliest stages of it.

From the Mayo Clinic on paranoid schizophrenia:

"With paranoid schizophrenia, your ability to think and function in daily life may be better than with other types of schizophrenia. You may not have as many problems with memory, concentration or dulled emotions."

And from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophreni... ):

"People with paranoid schizophrenia are often more articulate or "normal" seeming than other schizophrenics... The diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is given with the presence of bizarre delusions or hallucinations that defy the natural laws of basic logical thought processes, or thought disorders and withdrawal due to these thoughts and delusions."

"People who are diagnosed with paranoid-type of schizophrenia are often given a better prognosis than those with other types, are generally better able to take care of themselves and are more mentally functional."

Again, mental illness is very different from the caricature you seem to think.

As far as Jesus, so many things he is quoted as saying fall right under the definition: "bizarre delusions or hallucinations that defy natural laws of basic logical thought processes."

Moreover Jesus displayed erratic behavior (Mark 8: 31-33; Matthew 21: 12-13), which would be consistent with this illness.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Secularist

you are avoiding the main point: without the influence of modern medicine and techniques a PSYCHOTIC person can not relate to his/her environment.

I certainly haven't included milder cases of personality disorder in which case a person can sometimes barely continue to function (albeit with assistance).

Your description of JC's alleged mental illness is in the worst case scenario: hearing voices, imagining he is God, talking to angels, talking to the devil etc. Therefore I am quite technically correct in my analysis. (I have studied and researched this field for many years.)

In other words JC was not in the psychotic category as he remained totally functional, espoused a world changing philosophy and was able to lead and direct many other people.

You can't have it both ways: by your analysis if he was hearing voices he was therefore badly psychotic; but as we can see he was not psychotic at all but in an altogether different spiritual mind set.

It is interesting to note Hindus recognize another state of being that Western philosophy does not: a state that can sometimes externally resemble psychosis but is in fact a deeply spiritual state whose participants remain highly socially productive, who have many follwers and who write great works of philosophy.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

"without the influence of modern medicine and techniques a PSYCHOTIC person can not relate to his/her environment."

Once again, you are simply incorrect.

Let's look at two potential symptoms of psychosis, from the Wikipedia article on "psychosis" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis ).

Let's look at (a) hallucinations and (b) catatonia.

"A hallucination is defined as sensory perception in the absence of external stimuli... However, the experience of hearing voices need not always be a negative one. One research study has shown that the majority of people who hear voices are not in need of psychiatric help."

And catatonia:

"Catatonia describes a profoundly agitated state in which the experience of reality is generally considered impaired... The classic presentation is a person who does not move or interact with the world in any way while awake... The other type of catatonia is more of an outward presentation of the profoundly agitated state described above. It involves excessive and purposeless motor behavior, as well as extreme mental preoccupation that prevents an intact experience of reality."

These are both potential symptoms of psychosis, neither of which is necessary, but both are sufficient for a diagnosis.

Whereas you seem to think psychosis is more or less synonymous with catatonia.

Mental illness is a broad and diverse phenomenon, much more so than you seem to think.

Thus, a person can be mentally ill or mentally dysfunctional while still "remaining totally functional, and espousing a world changing philosophy."

Those things are not mutually exclusive.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

You keep forgetting about the role of modern treatments including assistance in your thinking. You are transposing modern concepts and treatments with ancient scenarios. Look at the history of such serious mental illnesses and how such people were unable to relate to their environment. Places like Bedlam were full of such people who were unable to relate to their environment. Its no use just denying it and using modern situations with those of 200 years ago and 2000 years ago.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

I have only been referring to the symptoms of these conditions, without/ before treatment.

You continue to ignore the simple information I keep presenting about these conditions, and about mental illness in general.

Regarding social support from friends/ family--indeed, that could very well have been a factor in Jesus' life (and others' lives), contributing all the more to his ability to function normally or somewhat normally.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

We have to totally disagree here about the condition of a psychotic person prior to the use of modern medical treatments (in conjunction with environmental helps such as family). Patients in Bedlam were not all catatonic by far: paranoids, psychopaths, schizophrenics,severe anxiety syndromes etc were all generally incapable of functioning in society at all without modern medicinal treatments (and family help). Catatonics probably didn't survive at all for long in any environment back then. JC it is recorded spent long periods of time in the wilderness on his own without any help; and later left his family to wander and preach quite successfully without any modern medication or allegations of madness. I believe his critics did label him a "wine (bibber?) drinker."

It is well documented historical fact that mentally ill people had a terrible prognosis until very recently in human history. Only the very richest families had any chance of protecting their mentally ill kin from very early death, incarceration or burning etc.

I ask you to consider that there is another rarer "state of being" other than just a severe psychosis that is much closer related to healthy consciousness and is typical of nearly all great spiritual leaders.

At the risk of sounding theatrical have you seen the TV series "Carnivale"? In the series they dramatically represent a concept of another state of being; although not strictly scientific of course!

Certain rare savants also demonstrate some of this other state of being"" which often has much much more than normal functionality. India has historically utilized these people to memorize huge quantities of information and also to lead and teach people.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 2 years ago from West Virginia

Sorry to interject here but where did it say in the bible that Jesus cured mentally ill people? I read about his curing other sicknesses but not mentally ill. Just as they had different disease categories and words back then they also had a large group of what they called Lepers. Go google that and you will find that there were lots of different kinds of diseases lumped into one category in those times. Heck look up disentry and you will find that it is a different thing today than it was only 100 years ago. We have what is called AIDS today but what will it be say 200 or even 2000 years from now?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oz:

"JC it is recorded spent long periods of time in the wilderness on his own without any help..."

All the more reason to think he was not catatonic, but potentially had other symptoms instead.

"It is well documented historical fact that mentally ill people had a terrible prognosis until very recently in human history."

Not exactly. For severe, debilitating illness, that is true. But mental illness comes in many forms as I keep saying, and people can function decently in many cases. Everybody reading this can just look at the sources I have given above.

If you take something as simple as Down Syndrome, for instance, even within that one condition, there are many degrees; some are severely debilitated, and others are highly functioning and can hold down jobs and so on.

In the distant past, people were more primitive and had less understanding of how the human body and mind works.

They were more likely to think that someone who reported "hearing voices" was possessed, or hearing the voice of God, or other supernatural explanations.

Whereas today we are more likely to say that person is disturbed/ mentally ill.

It's the same condition, but the cultural context and scientific awareness determine how other people look at them.

It's very possible that Jesus did have some kind of mental problems, but because of the culture he lived in, people thought he had supernatural powers. And that narrative was then recorded in the Bible.

A similar course of events is quite possible for other historical religious leaders.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Lady Guinevere:

That's a good point. A lot of things are often lost in translation in different versions of the Bible.

I just did a quick look and it does describe Jesus curing people of "demons." In which case we would assume demons/ other supernatural descriptors would be mental illness in modern parlance, which would in turn bolster my point: if Jesus was considered to have "supernatural" powers by his contemporaries, then in reality what he was experiencing was some form of mental disturbance.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 2 years ago from West Virginia

Then again demons in Greek were good to have around. When the Romans and Hebrews got to it then they became evil things. I wonder why the drastic flip.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

paladin

your title to this topic is "was Jesus crazy".

The term crazy is not an objective or kind term for the alleged mentally ill.

I have proved here to any objective observer that He wasn't crazy; that he did not have access to modern medication; and that he spent a lot of time away from family and started a world changing movement in only three years.

The only possible non-theist interpretation to the state of mind of Jesus was that he could possibly have been a highly unusual savant of some kind. To label Him crazy is therefore a highly subjective negative opinion that does not lend itself to close analysis.

I see no references here by you to the issue of modern medication versus the total lack of medication in ancient or even in recent modern history.

The category of mental illness where voices are heard are certainly not amendable to treatment without modern medication.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oz:

I assume you are referring to me not Paladin.

It's just a title.

Lol. You have proven nothing. I have provided external sources (in the article as well as in my comments), you have provided none. Only your own opinions.

It is impossible for you, me or anyone else to know with certainty what Jesus' mental state was. So for you to say that you have "proven" that Jesus wasn't crazy is absurd.

I don't know why you keep going on about modern medication when that is irrelevant.

How many times do I have to say this? I am not talking about medication or lack thereof. Obviously, if Jesus was mentally unbalanced in some way, he was not treated with modern medicine! Modern medicine did not exist, obviously!

If he was in such a state, he was not treated at all, hence why he continued to exhibit behavior consistent with various mental issues all the way to the end.

Your one and only interesting point is on Jesus being a savant. That is certainly a possibility. But I have already shown that much of his behavior, as described in the Bible (which I assume is your own holy book), is in fact consistent with more serious mental illness.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Secularist

If someone is hallucinating they need modern medicine: they can't lead peaceful revolutions; they can't even react to their environment.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Yes they can. Again, you are wrong on the facts.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

You havnt said how. Look at the historical record before modern medicine and enlightened attitudes. Such people had no hope at all and could not survive for long let alone invent new world changing philosophy and amazing leadership.

Come on!!


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 2 years ago from West Virginia

Are we only talking about where Jesus was said to live and the medical there? Other parts of the world had many medical miracles back then but we are only talking about a small place in this big world.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Oz:

Yes I have. Go back and re-read my comments and my citations. In the absence of any medication whatsoever, a person can have hallucinations or various mental issues, and still function more or less normally for at least a period of time (holding a simple job, feeding themselves, etc).

You assume that a person is either 100% sane and clear-headed, or 100% insane, drooling in the corner and ranting gibberish to themselves.

That's not the case. The mind is more complex than that. There is a lot of grey area where we can classify someone as mentally ill, but they can still function at least somewhat normally.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Lady Guinevere:

I think Oz is referring to the medical technology/ knowledge of Jesus' world.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 2 years ago from West Virginia

I do understand that. Jesus knew more than what religionist think that he did.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

There is no ancient historical evidence at all of hallucinating "crazy" people being able to function to the point of great leadership and creating great philosophy.

Hence people like JC and Joan of Arc and St Francis of Assisi were in totally another state of being that others saw as insane. For the sake of atheist readers this may have been a savant state combined with normal sanity.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Obviously primary sources from the ancient past would not have been able to adequately describe such individuals. They did not have modern medicine or modern psychiatry or neuroscience.

Modern medicine tells us that, yes, indeed a person can be mentally ill and still able to function. But ancient people would have been more likely to understand their condition as divinely inspired and so on.

In fact, just look around in any big city and you will see homeless or semi-homeless people that are clearly mentally ill to some degree (talking to themselves and whatnot), but are nevertheless able to feed themselves, put themselves to bed every night, etc.

Jesus himself spent a good portion of his later life in a state that we today would describe as homeless.

With just a little help from family or social workers, many people with mental illness are able to lead more or less normal lives.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

Once again: these modern day people are on anti-psychotic drugs and if not are usually rolling in their own faeces.

I invite you to look at the history of mental illness in even the last 200 years and places like Bedlam where people were sent and had no hope at all.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

I did not refer to modern patients, I referred to modern medicine and modern knowledge. We know that a person can be mentally ill and still function normally. Those are the facts that you are ignoring.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

If they are hallucinating as you claim JC was the ill need strong anti psychotic drugs. Its common knowledge.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Yes, they do need drugs, or at least some kind of medical help. But ancient peoples did not have those things. So they were more likely to interpret hallucinations as divinely-inspired or messages from God, etc.


Oztinato profile image

Oztinato 2 years ago from Australia

You are missing the point: people that bad in ancient times didn't even survive long.

Others who had genuine spiritual experiences functioned well and some like JC created philosophies and were famous leaders. So there are totally different categories to human consciousness such as savants, genius, enlightenment, etc which have nothing to do with crazy hallucinations.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Yes they did. We know they did because we know that hallucinations (including minor ones and even major hallucination episodes) do not prevent a person from functioning normally. At least not necessarily.

Human physiology and brain chemistry has not changed in thousands of years. We are the same today as we were in ancient times. The only difference is that today we understand the brain much more.


Matilda Mk2 2 years ago

No! I don’t think Jesus Was Crazy, I think he was a child genius protégé - (sorry don’t know how to get the accent over the ‘e’ on my keyboard).

Children have a way - a way that can become a habit of mimicking their parents needs and lives or living their lives to please their parents so that their parents can be proud of them. Some parents have a way of re-living their lives or re-visiting their youth through the lives of their children.

Jesus would have picked up on all those vibes.

Those children who don’t demand your attention as soon as the phone rings by acting up/playing up, they sit there quietly - good as gold, listening in on the conversation. Children are always listening in on adult conversations and the watching the interactions between their parents, other adults and other family members - especially on those days when you have family gatherings. As a genius child protégé, JC would have got a sense of what people need from much of the adult talk in the neighbourhood.

As a child genius, wanting to especially please his parents - I suspect that the kids in the neighbourhood didn't like Jesus very much and certainly didn't like playing with him. By the same token Jesus himself would at times be tiresome of their childish games because he knew and they knew that he was brilliant at everything, excelled in everything and would always win the games played.

Children like that tend to be loners and outcasts in the community. They do their best to blend and join in, but for most part it doesn’t really work. Children like that also tend to be around their parents feet a lot - to the point of becoming a burden to the parent because the parents wants the child to do normal childish things, whilst they grab at least a 5 minute breather away from parenting. At some point JC would have decided that this is what he was going to do with his life - become the saviour of the world.

That’s what I think! That’s what I Believe!

My criticism of your Hub is that I note your Hub asks the question Was Jesus Crazy?

The bits and pieces I’ve skim read - from both the Hub and the Comments - you’ve taken no real ‘risk’ in Publishing your Hub as it does not state what you believe, what you think or whether this is a real theory of yours that others can investigate or explore. You’ve just put either a professional or personal experience ‘spin’ on the matter and thrown it out there into the ether/universe - for whatever reason.

(Sorry I had to put this in the middle so that you don't think I Am condemning you for your views because I Am not,but neither do I want it to be the focus of your response. However, the comparisons between Jesus' lifestyle, behaviour and sayings with a modern view of Schizophrenia are to me an excellent evaluation of Truth - a Truth which exists in the lives of many individuals with mental health issues - a Truth that can be validated and integrated into a society that still scorns the mentally ill.

Most religious people do see and hear what we see and hear - the alternative viewpoint - but they like to play The Game of Life in relative comfort and safety and nothing is going to shift them from that pattern. Life is less complex when you run with the crowds, side with the masses, allow the majority to rule. Life is so much more easier when they’re the ones throwing the stones, casting aspersions, and being the onlooker spewing out venomous accusatory words like ‘Blasphemy’, Evil, Witch, The Devil, Wicked Wretch etc, they did the same thing to Jesus - they can’t help themselves, they are weak and attribute their weakness to an amazing Beatitude. It’s always up to the alternative viewpoint such as you and your Hub - Was Jesus Crazy to shed light on what could possibly be Truth.

Thank You!


Larry 2 years ago

I like this hub. I will be using it in my new sermon The Craziest Story You Ever Heard, But It's True! I will use it to show the hatard that non believers have for a supposed person that never lived. How athiest may have knowledge of the words in the Bible but do not have the wisdom to understand that knowledge. Let them that have ears hear and eyes see.


JMcFarland profile image

JMcFarland 2 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

How can anyone have hatred for something that you don't believe in? Do you have hatred for any other proposed deity? You have to believe in something in order to either love or hate it, and while you may equate non belief with hatred, it really, really isn't. Asking questions or seeing things from a different perspective as this hub does is not hatred either. I'm sincerely sorry that someone in a position of authority to teach others can't seem to distinguish the difference.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 2 years ago from Palm Springs

At Secularist:

From asking the question: "was JC crazy" to actually saying he was, as evidenced by your consistent insistence that he was, when replying to the hubbers who think otherwise,.... is quite a giant leap, considering the fact that all of what you've done was conjecture this, and guess that, and assume this and conclude that. All sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Larry--good, send them over here!

Regardless, I defy you to demonstrate any hatred on my part in this article. The only hatred has come from the believers who are so hypersensitive they just can't take any serious criticism.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

Villarasa--perhaps the fact that you keep coming back to this topic indicates that you think, in the back of your mind, there might be some truth to this after all? If I was such an idiot and this whole thing is such nonsense, then why do you keep patronizing this page over many months?

Haha.

You can't say that I have actually claimed that Jesus was insane. To the contrary, I have specifically stated multiple times that we cannot know the actual fact of the matter.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

J McFarland-- well said. The notion that "you don't believe in god/ accept god because you hate him" and so on, is really absurd and it's surprising anybody makes that argument.

As far as Larry, he's just one of many with authority over the "flock." People who are susceptible to his message will be susceptible regardless, whether it was him or someone else.


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 2 years ago from Palm Springs

Of course you have claimed that JC was insane. You might want to review all your post in response to other Hubbers... oh but that would be too much work for you.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 2 years ago from New York City Author

To the contrary, it is you who will not put in the work to actually read what I have written without projecting your prejudices.

Show me where I categorically claimed that he was insane. Go ahead. I'm all ears.


Sean 24 months ago

As stated via religion, there is an elsewhere, an afterlife place. It is real. Concerning the universe, it has an inside, but it also has an outside, meaning, the elsewhere. It is real. In total, meaning the inside plus the outside, this is known as reality.

If you are in touch with reality, you are therefore in touch with both sides, for both are real. In doing so, you will see things and hear things that those who are not in touch with reality, will not see, and not hear.

Those who are not in touch with reality, will not see the truth, they will not see what is real, for they are detached from the entirety of reality. They are confined to being in touch with the inside only. Due to them not being in touch with the completeness of reality, their judgment of the others who are truly in touch, becomes seriously flawed.

They will perceive those that are in touch, as delusional, psychotic, etc.

By the way, God's signature is encoded within the Bible. This proof is revealed at http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2a.htm Click on the yellow flashing words, "Watch/Listen".

At the web site, in hidden code form, we find the following.

Search for the words "The Father", and sure enough, we find "GOD".

Search for the words "The Lord", and sure enough, we find "CHRIST".

Search for the words "The Father", "The Son", and "The Holy Spirit", and sure enough, we find "GOD" and "CHRIST".

All this information is present, but in an encoded form. And the list goes on and on . How can such encoded information be anything else other than the real deal?


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 24 months ago from New York City Author

Sean:

The Bible Code theories have been debunked time and again. If you take any large text (a fictional novel, a textbook, whatever), you will be able to find patterns in the words and letters and numbers if you arrange them in certain ways.

Indeed, some researchers have done just that with long books like Crime and Punishment or Tale of Two Cities.

"How can such encoded information be anything else other than the real deal?"

There is nothing "encoded" so the premise of your question is faulty.

If you are in touch with reality, you can see that religion is mostly myths and subjective intuitions from ignorant peoples in our past.


meetthegods profile image

meetthegods 22 months ago from Netherlands

Quote from the comments of secularist10: "I have not seen a novel argument for the existence of God or for Christianity in a long time."

Tadaa, you probably going to call me paranoid schizophrenic but I've seen so many supernatural things (real magic so to say) that I'm willing to bet my life (....) that there is a God (or Gods, because I've met all kinds). Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Boedhist, is all fine by me because nobody knows how IT exactely works. Anyhow... I would like to point out some flaws in your arguments.

Quote from the Hub: "Jesus had conversations with what he considered to be Satan (Matthew 4: 1-11), and claimed to be in communication with God the Father. Jesus exhibited other symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia: anxiety, anger, emotional distance, argumentativeness and condescension."

Here you simple say he is nuts (..) because he does things (talks directly with supernatural beings) you don't 'Belief'. For one who does belief (like me) this isn't far fetched or 'crazy' at all.

Jesus' childhood:

you argue Jesus might be paranoid schizophrenic because of a troubled childhood. People (often children) who 'know' they are reincarnated (there are lots of stories about them, even some very interesting ones on this website) often don't attach too much value to where and how they are (re)born, they simply (have to) accept the fact that they are 'placed' here again. I'm absolutely no biblical scolar but if I'm correct Jesus also did not have a particularly strong emotional bond with his (biological) father and mother. He knew they were there for the 'biological' process but His real Father was in Heaven so He probably really didn't mind at all how He was born here on earth.

Father Joseph being a potential emotional or physical abuser of Mary and Jesus sounds unlikely to me since already from when He was born He was visited by Kings as the Salvator so Joseph abusing Him would be kinda strange.

You say:

Jesus often refers to himself in the third person, perhaps indicating delusions of self-importance.

'Then they departed from there and passed through Galilee, and He did not want anyone to know it. For He taught His disciples and said to them, "The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day." But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him. (Mark 9: 30-32)'

When He refers to Himself in the third person He did it maybe simply because He was repeating the words from God or perhaps because He knew He wasn't a single lifeform but had different lives in other dimensions or He meant He was the Son of Man only until His resurrection, after His resurrection He was .... something else.

btw I'm not 'chosen' for some special purpose for all I know but I would like to end with the words a very high deity (God Himself?) thought me which are: "Be carefull with what I have created".

Namasté


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 21 months ago from New York City Author

Your argument requires acceptance of the existence of God and the supernatural realm, for which there is no justification.

As long as you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs or "supernatural" experiences, the more reasonable explanation is that they are deceptions, delusions, hallucinations, etc (which, by the way, people can experience even if they are not mentally ill).

In addition, you may be interpreting certain life events or phenomena as "supernatural" or "from god" when in fact they may be instances of luck, randomness or chance.

It's not a question of "belief" but rather evidence and proof.

"...already from when He was born He was visited by Kings"

You don't know that.


Pawel 21 months ago

I like your analysis. While not in-depth or thoroughly researched, it does point to something that most people indoctrinated into Christianity must have felt all along (though few are ready to admit): this whole Jesus story is insane - not because the Church has made it insane (though it has its fair share with all the zany dogmas), but because the insanity can be traced to the founder himself. Up till recently, I've still believed that crazy as Christianity is, Jesus was sort of OK on the whole, despite some erratic behaviours. But it is becoming clearer to me that we should look for the roots of the malaise at the source. And if we look closely and without emotional attachment, we see the derangement plain and clear.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 20 months ago from New York City Author

Thank you Pawel, good points. The narrow-mindedness began with Jesus himself and simply grew and expanded from there in the decades and centuries that followed. The history of the entire religion makes that clear.


Joe Renfrow profile image

Joe Renfrow 18 months ago

Jesus was a Timelord from the planet Gallifrey. His father was a Timelord and Mary was one of his travelling companions. He was conceived in the Vortex and that explains his 'heavenly' origin. His father left him to grow up on earth because hybrids are frowned upon on his home world. His Resurrection and the Shroud of Turin are explained by the brilliant regeneration energy put out after his recovery from his death. The reason why only his mother recognized him after his rebirth was obvious, it is her son after all and his new appearance only fooled his followers and others. He left earth via a Tardis left by his father. As good a theory as any.


d.william profile image

d.william 18 months ago from Somewhere in the south

Joe: that is one of the most amusing and colorful descriptions of the Messiah that i have every read. Thank you for sharing your lighthearted humor. But if you would like a better explanation of who Jesus was visit my H.P. and read all about the psychological view of who J.C. was.


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 18 months ago from New York City Author

I would actually say that such extraterrestrial explanations make more sense than supernatural ones.


grand old lady profile image

grand old lady 4 months ago from Philippines

I am a believer. But if I were to look at your arguments from your point of view, they would make sense, except for one: "A major piece of evidence that Jesus was mentally disturbed is the fact that he went to the grave for his beliefs. Rather than simply relinquish his fantastic claims to avoid pain, torture and death, he held onto them until the very end. It is very hard to imagine a sane person behaving this way".

History is filled not just with heroes but with unnamed soldiers who went to war and died because of their beliefs. That is not insanity, that is purpose. No one wants to die, but they go to war knowing the possibilities that lie before them in going. The idea of dying for your beliefs is not insanity. Think of America's war for independence, and how John Hancock made his own signature the biggest. And think of the civil war. So a willingness to die for a commitment and even be tortured for it is not insanity but an act of purpose, facing the consequence, and usually motivated by great love. I think many of us would die and suffer for the sake of our children.


Hal 5 weeks ago

What did Jesus look like? Probably short and darker than an olive complexion.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working