Were Jesus and Muhammad insane?

[Cobol]

If anyone wants me to quote versus from either the Bible or Quran about these two absurd crazed characters, i would be more than willing to. It would only prove my point that they were insane, and would be diagnosed that way, if they lived today.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Here is one study. There are more, i just have to relocate them. I have to go eat now, so wont be back for an hour.

Psychological characteristics of religious delusions

Thanks for that. I think you are reading too much into the paper.

For example under the clinical implications section we have:

We found that religious delusions were more likely to be accompanied by grandiose delusions, and high levels of positive symptomatology, including hallucinations, passivity phenomena, and unusual behaviour.

Which suggests an association between religious delusions and grandiose delusions but then in the section on limitations of the study we have:

This study adopted a cross sectional design and thus no causal relationships can be established.

Conclusion

Approximately one-fifth of people with delusions have religious delusions. Their attitudes to and levels of engagement with treatment are similar to those of people with any kind of delusion, and therefore efforts should be made to optimise both psychological therapies and prescribing.

I'm not entirely clear where you are going with this.

Best wishes

 

[arthra]

David Koresh of the Branch Davidians had schizophrenia, and I'm sure most if not all cult leaders do.

And he had good leadership ability?????

 

[Willamena]

I personally don't think neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever existed, but if they did wouldn't they be considered lunatics or having a delusional disorder, or grandiose delusions that occur in people suffering from a wide range of psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia. These patients are characterized by bizarre beliefs that one is omnipotent or powerful. These delusions typically are religious and supernatural.

So considering the preposterous things they said, wouldn't they be considered insane?

Since they existed thousand of years ago, I doubt they'd be considered widely insane.

 

[oldbadger]

If anyone wants me to quote versus from either the Bible or Quran about these two absurd crazed characters, i would be more than willing to. It would only prove my point that they were insane, and would be diagnosed that way, if they lived today.

Yes please....... the verses relating to Jesus, I don't know about Muhammad.

 

[shmogie]

If anyone wants me to quote versus from either the Bible or Quran about these two absurd crazed characters, i would be more than willing to. It would only prove my point that they were insane, and would be diagnosed that way, if they lived today.

Again, you allow for only one possibility, choosing to ignore any other. You have a totally rigid preconceived opinion that determines the parameters of the possible, then you crow over your conclusion from within those parameters. What is the point ?

 

[Cobol]

You quoted the study, which was what my definite original position was.

We found that religious delusions were more likely to be accompanied by grandiose delusions, and high levels of positive symptomatology, including hallucinations, passivity phenomena, and unusual behaviour.

This study adopted a cross sectional design and thus no causal relationships can be established.

While cross-sectional studies cannot be used to determine causal relationships that can provide a useful springboard to further research. When looking at a public health issue, such as whether a particular behavior might be linked to a particular illness, researchers might utilize a cross-sectional study to look for clues that will serve as a useful tool to guide further experimental studies.

Thank you for the debate

 

[Cobol]

And he had good leadership ability?????

He had a following.

 

[idav]

I personally don't think neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever existed, but if they did wouldn't they be considered lunatics or having a delusional disorder, or grandiose delusions that occur in people suffering from a wide range of psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia. These patients are characterized by bizarre beliefs that one is omnipotent or powerful. These delusions typically are religious and supernatural.

So considering the preposterous things they said, wouldn't they be considered insane?

It can't be insanity if half the world believes it, or can it? Maybe a form of cognitive dissonance can be a thing but not insanity. Besides, if the Jesus character was actually performing miracles, couldn't rightly call that person insane.

 

[Cobol]

Yes please....... the verses relating to Jesus, I don't know about Muhammad.

He told his followers to hate their families. Luke 14:26
He came to break apart families. Mathew 10:35-36
He insisted that his followers love him more than anyone else (including their families). Mathew 10:37
He encouraged people to abandon their home and family for his name's sake. Mathew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30 Luke 18:29-30
He was rude to his own family. Mathew 12:47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21
He was dismissive of other people's feelings toward their families. Mathew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62
He discouraged marriage. Luke 20:35
He was a hypocrite. Mathew 5:22, Luke 11:40, Luke 24:25
He encouraged his followers to mutilate themselves to avoid hell. Mathew 5:28-30, Mathew 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-48
He encouraged men to castrate themselves. Mathew 19:12
He approved of God's killings in the Bible. Mathew 10:14-15, Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:26, John 3:14
He believed in the Old Testament's stories. Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:27, Luke 17:29-32, Mathew 12:40
He accepted Old Testament laws. Mathew 5:17
He criticized the Pharisees for not killing parent-cursing children. Mathew 15:4, Mark 7:10
He and his dad plan to torture billions of people forever after they die. Mathew 7:19, Mathew 10:29, Mathew 13:41-32, Mathew 13:49-50, Mathew 25:41, Mathew 25:46, Mark 16:16, Luke 12:5

This is just fifteen, and there are many many more. I didn't want to give details of the verse, for it would take up the whole thread.

If you would like more verses, just let me know.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You quoted the study, which was what my definite original position was.

While cross-sectional studies cannot be used to determine causal relationships that can provide a useful springboard to further research. When looking at a public health issue, such as whether a particular behavior might be linked to a particular illness, researchers might utilize a cross-sectional study to look for clues that will serve as a useful tool to guide further experimental studies.

Thank you for the debate

That is true, in regards to providing clues for further research. However I live in New Zealand where about 45% of the population identify as being Christian. I doubt if any clinician would consider high rates of psychosis and mental illness amongst this group to be significantly different from the rest of the population. There are far more pressing concerns in regards to public health issues such as suicide rates and drug and alcohol abuse/dependence.

The place I live is famous for internationally renowned medical research as we have ongoing multidisciplinary study with a population of over 1,000 people from birth that we have been following for over 40 years.

Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Research Unit - DMHDRU

 

[shmogie]

He told his followers to hate their families. Luke 14:26
He came to break apart families. Mathew 10:35-36
He insisted that his followers love him more than anyone else (including their families). Mathew 10:37
He encouraged people to abandon their home and family for his name's sake. Mathew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30 Luke 18:29-30
He was rude to his own family. Mathew 12:47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21
He was dismissive of other people's feelings toward their families. Mathew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62
He discouraged marriage. Luke 20:35
He was a hypocrite. Mathew 5:22, Luke 11:40, Luke 24:25
He encouraged his followers to mutilate themselves to avoid hell. Mathew 5:28-30, Mathew 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-48
He encouraged men to castrate themselves. Mathew 19:12
He approved of God's killings in the Bible. Mathew 10:14-15, Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:26, John 3:14
He believed in the Old Testament's stories. Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:27, Luke 17:29-32, Mathew 12:40
He accepted Old Testament laws. Mathew 5:17
He criticized the Pharisees for not killing parent-cursing children. Mathew 15:4, Mark 7:10
He and his dad plan to torture billions of people forever after they die. Mathew 7:19, Mathew 10:29, Mathew 13:41-32, Mathew 13:49-50, Mathew 25:41, Mathew 25:46, Mark 16:16, Luke 12:5

This is just fifteen, and there are many many more. I didn't want to give details of the verse, for it would take up the whole thread.

If you would like more verses, just let me know.

Biblical exegesis is not your strong point. Context, direct meaning, indirect meaning, relationship to theme or point being made. Using reasonable exegesis most of your quotations are addressing something other than you imply. AS to your last, you are simply dead wrong. The first lie told in the Bible is" you won't die" you have bought it and perpetuate it. People who are dead cannot be tortured, people dead forever cannot be tortured, forever.

 

[oldbadger]

He told his followers to hate their families. Luke 14:26
He came to break apart families. Mathew 10:35-36
He insisted that his followers love him more than anyone else (including their families). Mathew 10:37
He encouraged people to abandon their home and family for his name's sake. Mathew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30 Luke 18:29-30
He was rude to his own family. Mathew 12:47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21
He was dismissive of other people's feelings toward their families. Mathew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62
He discouraged marriage. Luke 20:35
He was a hypocrite. Mathew 5:22, Luke 11:40, Luke 24:25
He encouraged his followers to mutilate themselves to avoid hell. Mathew 5:28-30, Mathew 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-48
He encouraged men to castrate themselves. Mathew 19:12
He approved of God's killings in the Bible. Mathew 10:14-15, Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:26, John 3:14
He believed in the Old Testament's stories. Mathew 24:37, Luke 17:27, Luke 17:29-32, Mathew 12:40
He accepted Old Testament laws. Mathew 5:17
He criticized the Pharisees for not killing parent-cursing children. Mathew 15:4, Mark 7:10
He and his dad plan to torture billions of people forever after they die. Mathew 7:19, Mathew 10:29, Mathew 13:41-32, Mathew 13:49-50, Mathew 25:41, Mathew 25:46, Mark 16:16, Luke 12:5

This is just fifteen, and there are many many more. I didn't want to give details of the verse, for it would take up the whole thread.

If you would like more verses, just let me know.

I read all those examples with care, and am very interested in your debate.
I'm being straight.... ok?
I would be very very grateful if you would kindly give me any ten additional examples?
I have altready saved the first 15 and have no intention of challenging even one of them.

There are no catches....
OB

 

[Cobol]

Biblical exegesis is not your strong point.

I'm not surprised by your repudiation of the interpretation of the versus, for i expected a fallacious tone.

 

[Cobol]

I read all those examples with care, and am very interested in your debate.
I'm being straight.... ok?
I would be very very grateful if you would kindly give me any ten additional examples?
I have altready saved the first 15 and have no intention of challenging even one of them.

There are no catches....
OB

Thank you for your honest and frank approach to the debate.

Here is fifteen, and if you inquire for more, i will provide them.

He implied that all Jews are going to hell. Mathew 8:12
He was a false prophet. Mathew 10:23, Mathew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Mathew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32 Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:11, 22:20
He was a warmonger. Mathew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53, Revelation 19:11
He was a megalomaniac. Mark 8:38, John3:18, 36, John 15:16
He condemned cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. Mathew 11:21-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:10-15
He called an entire generation perverse, evil, adulterous vipers. Mathew 12:34-39, 16:4, Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation.... 17:17
He invented George W. Bush's false dichotomy. Mathew 12:30, Luke 11:230
He approved of torture. Mathew 18:34-35
He believed in an unforgivable sin. Mathew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10
He spoke in parables to confuse people so he could send them to hell. Mark 4:11, Mathew 13:10-15
He believed in a God (himself?) who had his enemies slaughtered in front of him. Luke 19:27
He believed in devils, evil eyes, and unclean spirits. Mathew 10:5-8, Mathew 12:22, Mathew 17:18, Mark 1:34, Luke 9:1, Mark 3:11-12, Mark 7:22-23, Mathew 6:23, Luke 11:34, Mark 1:23-25, Mathew 10:1, Mathew 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26
He was a bit of a racist. Mark 7:26-27, Mathew 15:22-26
He condemned people to hell for things that their ancestors supposedly did. Mathew 23:31-35
He got kind of gross sometimes. Mark 7:23, Mark 8:23, John 9:6, John 6:53-57

 

[shmogie]

I'm not surprised by your repudiation of the interpretation of the versus, for i expected a fallacious tone.

A fallacious tone was not intended. What was intended was idea that you cannot take a verse, by itself, and necessarily draw the intended meaning without other considerations. As an example, you draw the conclusion that Jesus supported children being killed because they were disobedient. You missed the entire point. The pharisee's were an arrogant religious sect who were great at condemning others for sin. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy over and over again. He was pointing out that they bragged about keeping the law perfectly, but they hypocritically disobey it when their interests are involved. He wasn't making an issue one way or another about the law, he was making an issue about them. They accused him numerous times of breaking the law. The Samaritan women was going to be stoned for adultery, she admitted it, but he stopped her execution, Adultery was certainly more serious than a kid;s disobedience, but he saw that she wasn't harmed. Once again He addressed the failings of the law, which once fulfilled by him would cease to have any authority.

 

[oldbadger]

Thank you for your honest and frank approach to the debate.

Here is fifteen, and if you inquire for more, i will provide them.

He implied that all Jews are going to hell. Mathew 8:12
He was a false prophet. Mathew 10:23, Mathew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, Mathew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32 Revelation 3:11, 22:7, 22:11, 22:20
He was a warmonger. Mathew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53, Revelation 19:11
He was a megalomaniac. Mark 8:38, John3:18, 36, John 15:16
He condemned cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. Mathew 11:21-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:10-15
He called an entire generation perverse, evil, adulterous vipers. Mathew 12:34-39, 16:4, Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation.... 17:17
He invented George W. Bush's false dichotomy. Mathew 12:30, Luke 11:230
He approved of torture. Mathew 18:34-35
He believed in an unforgivable sin. Mathew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10
He spoke in parables to confuse people so he could send them to hell. Mark 4:11, Mathew 13:10-15
He believed in a God (himself?) who had his enemies slaughtered in front of him. Luke 19:27
He believed in devils, evil eyes, and unclean spirits. Mathew 10:5-8, Mathew 12:22, Mathew 17:18, Mark 1:34, Luke 9:1, Mark 3:11-12, Mark 7:22-23, Mathew 6:23, Luke 11:34, Mark 1:23-25, Mathew 10:1, Mathew 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26
He was a bit of a racist. Mark 7:26-27, Mathew 15:22-26
He condemned people to hell for things that their ancestors supposedly did. Mathew 23:31-35
He got kind of gross sometimes. Mark 7:23, Mark 8:23, John 9:6, John 6:53-57

Thankyou very much.
I guess that must surely have exhausted the list, there are so many. ?

I need to read all of them and file them for easy access.

 

[Cobol]

A fallacious tone was not intended. What was intended was idea that you cannot take a verse, by itself, and necessarily draw the intended meaning without other considerations. As an example, you draw the conclusion that Jesus supported children being killed because they were disobedient. You missed the entire point. The pharisee's were an arrogant religious sect who were great at condemning others for sin. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy over and over again. He was pointing out that they bragged about keeping the law perfectly, but they hypocritically disobey it when their interests are involved. He wasn't making an issue one way or another about the law, he was making an issue about them. They accused him numerous times of breaking the law. The Samaritan women was going to be stoned for adultery, she admitted it, but he stopped her execution, Adultery was certainly more serious than a kid;s disobedience, but he saw that she wasn't harmed. Once again He addressed the failings of the law, which once fulfilled by him would cease to have any authority.

Jesus affirmed the punishment of killing children who curse their parents, this law was established in the Torah, and when Jesus came to the Jews he too made sure that it was still supposed to be followed:

Matthew 15: 1-9 :
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Here we see Jesus rebuking the Jews who were not following this command, that those who curse their parents should be killed, rather the Jews made up their own man made laws. As you can see, Jesus was very angry with them for not following this law, and brought it to their attention, it is very obvious that Jesus still believed in this law and believed in carrying it out.

Christians often like to claim that the Torah laws are no longer to be followed; these verses completely refute that notion. If Jesus wanted to abrogate the Torah law on the punishment of children cursing their parents, he could have easily ended that commandment right there and then, but rather what we see is that he is very angry that the Jews have not followed this ruling.

So we must ask the Christians, why don’t they follow this law, and why don’t they ever tell us that Jesus believed in this law as well. It seems they are ashamed, and it also seems they are shy, and it also seems that they are so caught up in their own lies and inventions they created on Jesus that they can no longer escape it.

 

[Cobol]

Thankyou very much.
I guess that must surely have exhausted the list, there are so many. ?

I need to read all of them and file them for easy access.

There are many more, if you would like them.

 

[oldbadger]

There are many more, if you would like them.

Yes please....
If you have any more, from the gospels...... I would like to see them.