Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Was Jesus Christ Bipolar or Schizophrenic?

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 7:15 am

leejosepho wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
leejosepho's use of the scripture fails.

You are so silly!

@Awesomelyglorious: I apologize to you for saying that so flippantly. I had been here all day and was tired, and I only realized my error a few seconds after I had turned off my computer. Please forgive.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 7:27 am

puddingmouse wrote:
In my view, humans didn't rebel against the ways of God because there was no God to begin with. Jesus and pals are the real rebels.

Ah, now I see how you see things.

puddingmouse wrote:
I don't think a rebel is a bad thing to be and I think many assumed aspects of 'human nature' are worth rebelling against. I believe in human social progress rather than the ways of God.

Do you literally mean "believe in" as "have faith in" human social progress, or are you simply saying you believe human beings might some day eventually actually make some progress on their own ... and I do acknowledge a rhetorical element in my question there.

puddingmouse wrote:
We don't become less of a crap species by following the will of a God who might not exist, but by actively trying to improve.*

*imho, of course!

That would actually be more of a speculation of some kind than an actual opinion. An opinion would be something more like believing we all actually did begin as a "crap species" and that mankind could nevertheless "improve" much better or faster on its own than by following the will of his alleged creator. :wink:


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 7:38 am

HerrGrimm wrote:
I really do not remember anything in the Bible that would really show anyone but God to be bipolar.

I could almost go with that. As I understand things, He "created" (or "is the essence of") both good and evil ... and I got that thought from the "Sacred Name" crowd while they were debating/discussing the possible differences between what might be revealed in the names "YHWH" (creator) and "YHVH" (destroyer, like as the "death angel" in Egypt).


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Apr 2011, 8:21 am

leejosepho wrote:
You are so silly! Scripture might not convince anyone of anything, but neither was I even trying to even try to do so!

The problem is that why would you even cite a scripture against a philosophical possibility unless you expected persuasion. This simply does not make sense to me, as we expect human behavior to attempt to have a purpose.

Quote:
You bet. Such can only come from a prejudiced (rhetorical) position or philosophy or whatever.

Well.... no, it's just that the evidence is very poor.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 8:28 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
You are so silly! Scripture might not convince anyone of anything, but neither was I even trying to even try to do so!

The problem is that why would you even cite a scripture against a philosophical possibility unless you expected persuasion. This simply does not make sense to me, as we expect human behavior to attempt to have a purpose.

My purpose there was only intended to show my own reasoning.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Apr 2011, 9:27 am

leejosepho wrote:
My purpose there was only intended to show my own reasoning.

But your reasoning is useless unless it is to some degree persuasive. Now, could one attempt to make the argument in a persuasive manner? Yes, but the issue is a perceived failure.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 9:42 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
My purpose there was only intended to show my own reasoning.

But your reasoning is useless unless it is to some degree persuasive.

My reasoning was not being offered there. I was simply showing part of how I had come to a certain conclusion of my own and then allowing someone else to do their own thinking. Without meaning to sound accusatory here: You might have some kind of agenda such as trying to persuade others when you speak, but I do not.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

23 Apr 2011, 9:59 am

First assumption: Jesus was real - from which all other assumptions in this thread arise.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 10:06 am

Fnord wrote:
First assumption: Jesus was real ...

I believe there is good reason to believe that might be more than mere assumption ...

Quote:
The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus. The biblical description of Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Christ of Faith in this context. The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life, supplemented by materials uncovered more recently such as fragments of the Gospels. Therefore the historical Jesus is constantly evolving as new evidence is being uncovered. The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus ...
(emphasis added)

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


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Apr 2011, 11:33 am

leejosepho wrote:
My reasoning was not being offered there. I was simply showing part of how I had come to a certain conclusion of my own and then allowing someone else to do their own thinking. Without meaning to sound accusatory here: You might have some kind of agenda such as trying to persuade others when you speak, but I do not.

Well..... but unless the way that you came to our conclusion is rationally compelling, it's useless. Either your reasoning is good and we should all accept it, or it is bad, and you shouldn't accept it.

leejosepho, people who talk without seeking to inform, persuade, or anything else that compels us to rethink an issue are just.... not providing value. This isn't a matter of "agenda", this is just... part of the nature of intellectual discussion. It aims to be compelling, but if not that, at least persuasive and having qualities forcing us to accept the reasoning as legitimate.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Apr 2011, 11:34 am

Fnord wrote:
First assumption: Jesus was real - from which all other assumptions in this thread arise.

The big issue is just that mythicism is usually considered more implausible than holding that Jesus actually existed. Now, we can argue that Jesus has a bajillion myths projected onto his person, but almost nobody in scholarship holds that some person taking the place of Jesus didn't exist.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 11:52 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
leejosepho, people who talk without seeking to inform, persuade, or anything else that compels us to rethink an issue are just.... not providing value.

I understand, and I do not disagree. In my own case, I mostly only mean to inform, or to at least let other people know they do not have to just swallow something any particular so-called "rationalist" or "scientist" might have to say without first also doing some thinking on their own just like I have done. So overall, I am well aware of not always really "fitting in" very well here in PPR where some truly great minds often do interact in ways that actually can be beneficial to all ...

... but oh well, what the hell, eh?! Here we are.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

23 Apr 2011, 1:03 pm

leejosepho wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Considering the fact Jesus apparently caused blind people to suddenly be able to see, caused people to rise from the dead, etc. it is safe to say that he was neither.

Ignoring the dubious veracity of those miracles, why couldn't Satan give a severely Bipolar Schziphrenic does powers?


Quote:
veracity
1: devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2: power of conveying or perceiving truth
3: conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
4: something true <makes lies sound like veracities>

Why would someone even bother with ignoring dubious veracity?!



What, aside from your desire to be pointlessly contrarian, at all makes the statement contradictory or odd. Yes, claims are often of dubious truthfulness and people have used "dubious veracity" countless times before.

leejosepho wrote:
In any case ...

If there actually is a Satan, then there is a supernatural realm and the speculation of "Bipolar Schziphrenic" does not need to be even a rhetorical factor here. So, all of that leaves us with little more than this to consider:


Uh, strictly speaking the original post never mentions psychotic bipolar disorder or schizophrenia as an explanation for the absurd beliefs of Christians so much as an explanation for Jesus Christ's absurd, temperamental, and flip-flopping behaviour. So, yes, the "rhetorical factor" still stands.

leejosepho wrote:
"Why couldn't Satan give 'Jesus' the powers to perform miracles?"


"And the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the reigns of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I shall give You, and their esteem, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. If, then, You worship before me, all shall be Yours.'
”And answering him, He said, 'Get behind Me, Satan! ...”
(Luke 4:5-8)

In other words: Satan had nothing 'Jesus' either needed or wanted.


So that particular passage could very well be a forgery that the Satanically powered bipolar Jesus used (or his followers used) as cover-up.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

23 Apr 2011, 1:13 pm

Fnord wrote:
First assumption: Jesus was real - from which all other assumptions in this thread arise.

Yeah, I'm a bit amazed this thread didn't have first page replies that it might be a completely different DSM-IV condition all together: not existing.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

23 Apr 2011, 1:14 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Fnord wrote:
First assumption: Jesus was real - from which all other assumptions in this thread arise.

Yeah, I'm a bit amazed this thread didn't have first page replies that it might be a completely different DSM-IV condition all together: not existing.


The Principle of Embarrassment was invoked as a defense of the probability of a "historical Jesus's" existence in the OP.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Apr 2011, 1:36 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
... aside from your desire to be pointlessly contrarian ...

My occasionally being "contrarian" as you have described is never pointless. In those kinds of situations, I am typically trying as best I might to show others how to be cautious of unnecessary adjectives that are actually but rhetorical insertions (or subtle (even if unwitting)) insertions of rhetoric.

Master_Pedant wrote:
... strictly speaking the original post never mentions psychotic bipolar disorder or schizophrenia as an explanation for the absurd beliefs of Christians ...

I do not recall ever thinking it actually had, but yes, I think we both know the title of this thread was likely not presented as a yes-or-no question ...

"Was Jesus Christ Bipolar or Schizophrenic?"

Nevertheless, and with rhetorical intent there at least assumed, I think "No" is likely actually the best answer there.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================