Attacking Christians

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by blackyblue

Like i asked you on the other thread and you declined to answer..

Sex slavery sounds such a horrible word when put so bluntly, but WHAT DEFINITION ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Your definition and the bibles may be different

You probably judge the bibles definition on ur own satanic standards

Your Bible god whom you love so much, approves of this. It is OK to rape, pillage, commit genocide and to take young female virgins as your sex slaves after slaughtering their families; this is what your loving bible god demands.

Lux



(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. ... Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. .... But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. ..... Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

[blackyblue]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

It is your Bible god who openly promotes sex slavery and enforced pederastry.

I have never promoted such a thing; on the contrary.

Who did GOD allow to inherit the earth?

Therefor who would the LORD as spoken in certain parts of the bible be?

It almost tells you at the start of the bible in the story with Adam and eve


The only time Elohim was mentioned in the hebrew version was right at the start

Everyone after this was a false prophet, so this LORD of the bible is SATAN (AND YOU MY FRIEND ARE A SATAN WORSHIPPOR...hense do what thou wilt, and pictures of naked children)




This would also be why christians have been instructed not to follow the OT

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by blackyblue

Who did GOD allow to inherit the earth?

Therefor who would the LORD as spoken in certain parts of the bible be?

It almost tells you at the start of the bible in the story with Adam and eve


The only time Elohim was mentioned in the hebrew version was right at the start

The word Elohim (the gods; plural of El, meaning the big chief sky god) occurs around 2500 times in the Bible.

Everyone after this was a false prophet, so this LORD of the bible is SATAN

Ah so the Bible is a evil book, and the bible god is an evil god and the Christian god Jesus is evil?

Well many of us here would agree, but this seems to contradit so many other statements made by you here.



I think that you are very confused and frankly almost too stupid to believe. You are simply rambling incoherently.

Thank goodness that Christians are so fucking irrational and stupid that they love to show off to the world their stupidity and to make fools of themselves on the Internet.

Lux

"Never get into an argument with a fool or a women; because they are "always" right."

[blackyblue]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

The word Elohim (the gods; plural of El, meaning the big chief sky god) occurs around 2500 times in the Bible.

Educate yourself more Lucifer.

The word Elohim meant Lord.

But it was used in the bible to represent lots of different people.

Many people of that era took the name Elohim..


Overlords to SHEMS/kings would call themselves ELOHIM.


Therefor The pope of today 1000's years ago would have called himsef ELOHIM after the REAL Elohim..false prophet (thats the pope thats the false prophet, not the real elohim, just incase your powers of understanding fail you)

But the Elohim spoken in the rest of the bible was NOT the same Elohim as spoken about at the very start during the seven days of creation..This was infact the last time THE REAL ELOHIM was ever mentioned...After that it was YOUR GOD that was mentioned...the one that inherited the earth!!!!! SATAN

[exu156]

Originally Posted by blackyblue

This would also be why christians have been instructed not to follow the OT

Where have they been instructed not to follow the OT? Can you provide a verse? This is an honest question by the way, I'm not picking on you.

[blackyblue]

Originally Posted by exu156

Where have they been instructed not to follow the OT? Can you provide a verse? This is an honest question by the way, I'm not picking on you.

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat&id=615




Christians do not follow the Old Testament
Author: Various Authors
Type: Feature Article
ShareThis

THE CHURCH STUDIES THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR LEARNING, BUT NOT LAW

By William Woodson

As a people of the Book, members of the church of Christ have profound respect for the inspired writings of the Bible. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

One matter of concern, however, is the relation of the Old Testament to the church today. This article will discuss this point both negatively and positively.

I. The Old Testament is not the law for the church.

Jewish sympathizers sought to bind the Old Testament on the church in the days of Paul (Galatians 5:1-29; Galatians 2:1-5). Modern day religious groups seek to bind parts of the Old Testament on Christians, i.e., Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Various people have lingering questions and concerns about the matter of how we relate to the Old Testament.

The following truths make it clear that the people of God are not under the authority of the Old Testament today.

1. The Old Testament law was given to a specific group of people, the Jews, and was never said to have been given to anyone else, Christians included. God said to Moses, "...I have made a covenant with thee, and with Israel" (Exodus 34:27). The "children of Israel" were "to observe the sabbath throughout their generations" as a sign between "me (God) and the children of Israel forever" (Ex. 31:16-17). God made the Mosaic covenant with the Jews of Moses' day, not with others (Deuteronomy 5:1-3; Nehemiah 9:13-14)

2. The Old Testament law was only temporary and was, consequently, to come to an end. Jeremiah foretold this fact and the Hebrew writer declared its fulfillment (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13). God indicated that a new covenant, different from the covenant through Moses, was to be given; the Hebrew writer set forth its accomplishment. He then explained that in his day the old was "ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13) and that indeed "there is made of necessity a change of the law" (Heb. 7:12).

3. The Old Testament law was nailed to the cross of Christ and thereby was brought to an end as a law to guide God's people. Paul declared that Christians are "dead to the law by the body of Christ" and that this law was the law which said, "Thou shalt not covet", i.e. the ten commandments law (Romans 7:4,7). Elsewhere, Paul indicated that the veil which was "untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament ... is done away in Christ," the reason being it was "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:14,11). Christ "abolished in his flesh ... the law of commandments by the cross" (Ephesians 2:15-16). In fact, he was said to have removed the "handwriting of ordinances by nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14).

The result is, then, that the Old Testament as a law for God's people was removed by the death of Christ. Christians, therefore, are not to observe the Old Testament as the law for God's service today.

II. The Old Testament, though not the regulative will of God today, is still of much practical value for the Christian.

Two valuable passages on the usefulness of the Old Testament are Romans 15:4 and I Cor. 10:11. These verses show that the Old Testament has value for our "learning," "admonition," and "patience and comfort."

1. The Old Testament supplies much material for our learning. This relates to: (a) Fundamental questions such as the origin of the world (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6,9), the origin and nature of man (Genesis 2:7, Zechariah 12:1), the origin of sin (Gen. 3:1-6) and the beginning of the Hebrew nation (Gen. 12:1-3); (b) Essential information for the understanding of the New Testament such as the history of the Jewish people from Abraham to the end of the Old Testament; the understanding of Jewish events and activities mentioned in the New Testament, i.e., Passover, Pentecost, Sabbath, shedding of blood, etc; biographical allusions in the N.T. to O.T. people i.e., Elijah (Matthew 17:1-9), Moses (John 1:17), Adam and Eve (1 Timothy 2:12-15), etc; and back-ground for geographical allusions such as Jerusalem, Jordan, Samaria, etc. These bits and pieces of Old Testament allusion in the New Testament are better understood by a knowledge of the Old Testament. (c) Important information about Jesus and his way of life such as his genealogy (Matt. 1; Luke 3), the prophecies which pointed to his coming (Psalm 16:8-10; Isaiah 53, etc.), the failure of the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:1-2), and various essential words such as sin, righteousness, holiness, prayer, etc. Thus, the understanding of Jesus and his way is aided by the "learning" of the Old Testament.

2. The Old Testament supplies many admonitions for guiding and warning man. These include: (a) Admonitions concerning man's weakness such as the control of the heart (Proverbs 4:23), the danger of jealousy (Prov. 6:34-35) and of covetousness (Ex. 20:17; Joshua 7:1ff), and the "deadly sins" (Prov. 6:16-19). (b) Admonitions which show the need to obey God such as the examples of obedience in Hebrews 11, Joshua at Jericho, Naaman, Noah, etc. (c) Admonitions concerning the meaning and punishment of unrighteousness such as the sin of David (2 Samuel 11; Psalm 51), of Saul (1 Sam. 15), of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10), and of Balaam (Numbers 22). These admonitions, by precept and example, show the need of proper service and character for God's people.

3. The Old Testament provides for our patience and comfort in various ways. There are excellent readings which tell of God's care and keeping of his people (Psalm 23:27; 103; 121, etc.) Also, there are examples of his keeping of his servants such as Job (Book of Job), David (Psalm 37:25-26), and Joshua (Josh. 1:5-9). In addition, the care God provided for the Jewish nation, in spite of its frequent failings and sins, serves to show his interest and provision for us today.

The Old Testament, then, should not be regarded as the Law of God's people today since as a law it served its purpose, was fulfilled, and removed from authoritativeness by the death of Christ. The Old Testament, however, should be treasured as an inspired book from God which supplies means of our learning, admonition, patience and comfort.

[blackyblue]

exu, Christians do not follow a tyrant GOD, They follow the GOD at the very start of the OT, but they denounce SATAN whom wandered and inherited earth after GOD wiped his hands.

They do NOT follow the laws of your god SATAN


SATAN is the lord of the OT....Hense the 'do what thou wilt, attitude that you pretend to be upset about at the same time as following Crowley whom promoted do what thou wilt..but you dont know the meaning of do what thou wilt...Satan emphasises quite clearly in the OT what DO WHAT THOU WILT is

[exu156]

Originally Posted by blackyblue

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat&id=615

Great, thanks for that link.

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by exu156

Where have they been instructed not to follow the OT? Can you provide a verse? This is an honest question by the way, I'm not picking on you.

On Christian Hypocrisy and the Multi-billion Dollar "Salvation in Jesus" Business.



It is a rather strange thing this Bible religion. What I think happened historically is that when the Christians were in power for many centuries, they did have the power to enforce many aspects of Biblical Law; as you know, many were tortured and murdered for blasphemy and heresy for example, and for rejecting thier evil god, Christ, and that is approved of in the Bible; however since the Reformation of the 16th century to the 21st century, what we can see is the rise of the multi-billion dollar Jesus industry. Here the Christians, generally instead of seeking the "enforcement" of certain Biblical Laws through having power over governments, have simply started independent religion businesses (churches); however since these charlatans are selling a product (salvation), they have to make their product easy to sell; so there are generally no punishments for breaking the Biblical Law, as long as one comes to church and purchases salvation.

Thus it is all essentially about "believing" in Jesus.



Hypocrites

A Marxist, for example, we could say is a person who adheres to the poltiical philosophy of Marx, but a Christian is not usually a person who actually believes all the laws of the Bible god and his incarnation on earth; they are like a person who claims to be a Marxist, but who rejects the political ideology of Marx; much like many Chinese Communist Party members who are evangelical Capitalists.

A Christian who followed the teachings and example of Jesus, would be a homeles (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed (he asked his followers to give up thier professions), shoeless, wandering exorcist, fake healer and preacher who had given all their money to the poor and who refused to carry money or have more than one robe; thus they would not be on the Internet, and unable to afford the price of salvation in a Jesus business Temple. They would also be able to do miracles (such as moving mountains), drink deadly poison and follow the letter of the Law.

It seems to be much easier to sell salvation in the name of a dead religious fanatic than to actually follow his vile and ridiculous teachings and laws.

So we have to deal with the victims of this religion here.

Lux

[blackyblue]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

The word Elohim (the gods; plural of El, meaning the big chief sky god) occurs around 2500 times in the Bible.




Ah so the Bible is a evil book, and the bible god is an evil god and the Christian god Jesus is evil?

Well many of us here would agree, but this seems to contradit so many other statements made by you here.



I think that you are very confused and frankly almost too stupid to believe. You are simply rambling incoherently.

Thank goodness that Christians are so fucking irrational and stupid that they love to show off to the world their stupidity and to make fools of themselves on the Internet.

Lux

"Never get into an argument with a fool or a women; because they are "always" right."

Its you who does not understand.

Also you repeat yourself and ignore what i said about Elohim.



I did not speak about Elohim through impunity..I speak after a great deal of research into the Ancient hebrew language that the bible was written in..

I can assure you that the name ELOHIM as spoken about in almost ALL the bible was not the same ELOHIYM as at the start.


"When we see a name such as "King David" we see the word "King" as a title and "David" as a name. In our western mind a title describes a character trait while a name is simply an identifier. In the Hebrew language there is no such distinction between names and titles. Both words, King and David, are descriptions of character traits, King is "one who reigns" while David is "one who is loved". It is also common to identify the word "Elohiym" (God) as a title and YHWH (Yahweh, the LORD, Jehovah) as a name. What we do not realize is that both of these are character traits, YHWH meaning "the one who exists" and Elohiym is "one who has power and authority". The Hebrew word "shem" more literally means "character". When the Bible speaks of taking God's name to the nations, he is not talking about the name itself but his character. When the command to not take God's name in vain literally means not to represent his character in a false manner. It is similar to our expression of "having a good name" which is not about the name itself but the character of the one with that name."
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_name.html

[blackyblue]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=189013

[blackyblue]

Now please take your blind fold off Lucifer, take your ear plugs out, actually read what i said and the links i provide, and do not simply see my name, my avator and then repeat yourself


I do not require for you to tell me again ELOHIYM was mentioned 2500 times in the bible

[blackyblue]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

On Christian Hypocrisy and the Multi-billion Dollar "Salvation in Jesus" Business.



It is a rather strange thing this Bible religion. What I think happened historically is that when the Christians were in power for many centuries, they did have the power to enforce many aspects of Biblical Law; as you know, many were tortured and murdered for blasphemy and heresy for example, and for rejecting thier evil god, Christ, and that is approved of in the Bible; however since the Reformation of the 16th century to the 21st century, what we can see is the rise of the multi-billion dollar Jesus industry. Here the Christians, generally instead of seeking the "enforcement" of certain Biblical Laws through having power over governments, have simply started independent religion businesses (churches); however since these charlatans are selling a product (salvation), they have to make their product easy to sell; so there are generally no punishments for breaking the Biblical Law, as long as one comes to church and purchases salvation.

Thus it is all essentially about "believing" in Jesus.

Hypocrites

A Marxist, for example, we could say is a person who adheres to the poltiical philosophy of Marx, but a Christian is not usually a person who actually believes all the laws of the Bible god and his incarnation on earth; they are like a person who claims to be a Marxist, but who rejects the political ideology of Marx; much like many Chinese Communist Party members who are evangelical Capitalists.

A Christian who followed the teachings and example of Jesus, would be a homeles (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed (he asked his followers to give up thier professions), shoeless, wandering exorcist, fake healer and preacher who had given all their money to the poor and who refused to carry money or have more than one robe; thus they would not be on the Internet, and unable to afford the price of salvation in a Jesus business Temple. They would also be able to do miracles (such as moving mountains), drink deadly poison and to follow the letter of the Law.

It seems to be much easier to sell salvation in the name of a dead religious fanatic than to actually follow his vile and ridiculous teachings and laws.

So we have to deal with the victims of this religion here.

Lux

On Satanic misunderstanding more like..and a failure to read things

[khepera2010]

Originally Posted by blackyblue

what are your views on the attacks that the Occult are planning in Miami, Nebraska, and at the end of the yellow brick road in Kansas?

What was your thoughts on the BP oil spill? Was this a manufactured disaster and sabotage?


How about 9/11 and the waco disatser? what about Loughner? Haarp, the columba shuttle explosion, where they not part of Satans freemasonic plan?


Where they not connected?

Originally Posted by blackyblue

And why do they do it?

Because being 'EVIL' is the best way to earn great riches!!
..To get rich you mostly need to be rutheless, shrewd, and EVIL
..To be evil you have to psyche yourself, they do this through devil worship
...Christianity is not a good charachteristic to hold of you want to get rich, because christian are too kind hearted to want to be super rich and kill for it

Honestly, wtf is the above all about??? There's an imbecile trying to baffle us with bullshit.

Originally Posted by cwl3

There's also radziox and some guy other guy who says something about following the left hand path so without splitting hairs that's 5 in my book...

That'll be me little one.

And you claimed that you were'nt calling me a 'satanist' but merely that I was talking with satanists.

And now you've changed your mind again?

Or are you confused once more?

Or perhaps it's your lying streak that I alluded to yesterday and you always thought that the Left Hand Path is 'satanism'? It is'nt btw but don't let the truth get in the way of a good lie, eh. Just as a side note: there are some lhp practitioners who are christians - very very few but still, there are some.

Let's face it, you don't really know what Satanism is but you have gathered that 'Satan' is the adversary of the biblical god. Therefore anything that goes against the tyrannical abrahamic religions must therefore be 'satanic' by defenition.

Note I said 'tyrannical abrahamic religions' because it is them that have turned The Divine into a raving lunatic and sections of mankind into slaves.

[saint_frankenstein]

Originally Posted by khepera2010

Honestly, wtf is the above all about??? There's an imbecile trying to baffle us with bullshit.

Lol! That perfectly sums up my feelings towards blackblue's posts.

[ohme]

Originally Posted by cwl3

There's also radziox and some guy other guy who says something about following the left hand path so without splitting hairs that's 5 in my book.



You are correct, this is why I wonder what point it is they are trying to prove and why they just can't leave people in peace.

Hello. Why do christians consider this forum the "enemy ground" if they just want to be left in peace? It doesn't make sense that they would come to enemy ground for a little peace. If they want peace they must go to their own ground and not venture to enemy ground.

So again it seems that the christians here are paranoid. The only people that can be influenced by such christianity, that considers itself the only one pleasing to God, is those going toward brainwashing in their mind. And these people are not at peace. it is a false peace, sorry.

I'm calling for a clarification of the christian message, and no one is obliging.
I specifically need to know if christianity is indeed built on the principle that only their good deeds are pleasing to God, and that he rejects the rest.

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by ohme

I'm calling for a clarification of the christian message, and no one is obliging.
I specifically need to know if christianity is indeed built on the principle that

Well....to restate.

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

1: No money carrying. No Shoe wearing. Only one robe. No staff.
.
‘Carry neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two robes, neither shoes, nor yet a staff. Mt 10’

Obviously a Christian who carries money, wears shoes, has more than one robe or carries a staff is a false Christian. A "true" Christian would never commit these damnable heresies. Further in obedience to the Mosaic Law, one should never cut one's beard (see image above.)

Clearly only "false" Christians wear shoes, have more than one robe, carry money or have a staff.

2: Ultimately total nudity is required for a Christian. The only mandatory possession is a sword.

"...and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. (Luke 22:35-38)"

If a Christian has obeyed the edict of Jesus and only has one robe, if the Christian is without a sword, the Christian is then commanded to sell this one robe and buy a sword, it thus follows that the Christian would have to be totally naked (see image above).

Clearly in this case if a Christian is not naked and does not have a sword, they are false Christians.

3: Non payment of taxes.

"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a king.”[/I] (Luke 23:1-4)

Obviously if a Christian refuses to carry money (as Jesus commanded), it follows that they would be unable to pay taxes.

Clearly tax paying Christians are "false" Christians.


3: No Swearing of Oaths or making promises.

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
earth.- Matthew 5:34-35

..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus, as would American Presidents swearing on stacks of Bibles, and Christians swearing oaths in courts or military oaths to fight the enemies of Capitalism.

Clearly Christians who make promises are false Christians.

4: A true Christian would sell all they have and give all the money to the poor.

Sell all that you have and give to the poor... Luke 12:33

Clearly Christians who have not sold "all" they have and given it to the poor are false Christians.


5: A true Christian would reject the Christian clergy (the professional hypnotists and indoctrinators)

‘Be not called Rabbi (teacher)… and call no man your father upon the earth…neither be called masters……and whoever exalts himself shall be abased. (Mt.38)’

Clearly Christians who refer to anyone as "reverend," "father," "priest," etc., are false Christians.

6: A true Christian would martyr themselves in resistance to tyranny (government).

The historical meaning of 'take up your cross;' is that is was risking the common punishment for anti-Roman terrorists.

A true Christian would thus be a primitivist Anarchist and sacrifice their lives as anti-government martyrs; all other Christians are clearly false Christians.


7: A True Christian would never pray in public in the street or in a Temples (Church).

And when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the temples and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when thou pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray in secret; and your God which hears in secret shall answer you. And when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Mt. 6)

Clearly only a "false" Christiqan would ever pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple (church) as a true Christian would only pray alone in private behind closed doors.

8: Only False Christians would seek peace.

"Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword..........I have come to cast fire onto the earth; would that it be already kindled"

9: True Christians should be executed; they should not even exist.

In Luke 14:26 Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.”

Since this is a clear violation of the Mosaic Law (which Jesus advocated following) and an executable offense, all true Christians should anyway be executed and eradicated from the face of the earth.

Note that this is not an extensive list.

Some additional requirements for being a "true" Christian and "following the letter of the Law (as Jesus demanded) appear below. Note that this is not an extensive list; fulfulling "all" of the 613 Mosaic Laws and the edicts of the Israelite prophets is required also, such as not cutting one's beard, etc.

[ohme]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

Well....to restate.

Fair enough of course. Some of this goes on to highlight how Jesus is presented in rather a schizzophrenic manner in the bible. He leans toward the idea of unconditional love and the cessation of struggle in one's life, replaced by full trust in God, and then becomes a dual minded tyrant who allows only his believers to suck his dick when it comes to doing good. It has become another ego trip.

So it would be nice if the christians here can present what true christianity is about, and whether it is true that only a christian is able to please God when it comes to good works, for example. I know KOTG and logos believe this to be true. But other christians have gone silent on the issue.

Christians don't have this power which you rightly point out. They would have the power over the elements, of healing, resurrection of the flesh etc. But instead the ignorant cowered back and fell to their knees, as if David Bowie really was a god from another planet.

[luciferhorus]

Originally Posted by ohme

Fair enough of course. Some of this goes on to highlight how Jesus is presented in rather a schizzophrenic manner in the bible. .

The fictional Jesus is an archetype of classic religious schizophrenia.

1: Hears voices in his head; believes that God is speaking to him, Later Christians come to believe that Jesus "is" God and thus even they believe therefore that he was talking to himself.



2: Messianic complex. Believed that only if people believed in him (and only if they were Israelites; a tiny nation on earth at that time) would they enter heaven and that all others would be tortured cruelly in hell.

3: Believed that mental and physical illness were caused by demonic possession and that he and his followers could cure them.

4: Believed that his followers could drink deadly poison and it would not harm them.

5: Was homless and peniless and encouraged others to do the same and to become wandering exorcists and fake healers. Many schizophrenics are homeless people.

And the Christians who claim to "love" him more than anyone else in history are encouraged to follow in his schizophrenic example.

There is a guy in London like that who is homeless, mentally ill and just wanders around the West End preaching, but women and men do not come up to him and worship him and follow him; they just think he is mentally ill.

Etc., etc

Lux


______________________



Jesus and Schizophrenia
Posted by Brian on February 6, 2011 at 9:42pm in The Other Free Thinkers
Back to The Other Free Thinkers Discussions
.
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/co...ource=activity



We cannot fully understand Jesus without discussing the mental illness—schizophrenia—of Jesus. Schizophrenia is the most common form of psychosis. The patients hear what ordinary people do not hear. Jesus used to claim that he had heard the voice of God or even seen him and therefore he was the son of God. The World Book Encyclopedia (1979 ed.) states about schizophrenia as follows:



… Schizophrenia ranks as one of the most common mental disorders. About 75 per cent of all victims develop the disease between the ages of 15 and 25. Slightly more women than men suffer from schizophrenia. Many schizophrenics develop delusions and behave as though they live in a fantasy world. They may hear “voices” that others cannot hear. The patients may believe that these “voices” carry messages from important people, or even from God. … (Contributed by Philip A. Berger.)



Schizophrenics show large variety of symptoms—from mild to severe, from quiet to boisterous, from gentle or benign to dangerous, from introspective to extroversive, from self-destructive (suicidal) to antisocial, etc. These diversities might be the reflection of the personalities or predisposition of the individual patients. The contents of the voices the patients hear are related to the patients’ interests, philosophy, wishful thinking, fear, personal experiences, outlook on man or the world, knowledge or stories absorbed from books or other people, etc. I once read a psychiatrist’s long report in which he says that some non-religious patients suddenly become ardent believers with the onset of the schizophrenia and some of them interpret or revise existing religious mythology or doctrines anew and even incessantly try to proselytize doctors (see the 61st Chapter “Schizophrenia and Priests” in Salvation from Religion, vol. 3 by the author).

The four Gospels of the New Testament include many episodes which show that Jesus was a schizophrenic. Jesus said that he heard the voice of God and he used to say, “I say and judge as God says to me” (John 5: 30, 37; 6: 46; 7: 29; 8: 16, 18, 19, 28, 29, 38, 42, 44; 10: 30; 14: 10).



John

5: 30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; ;and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

5: 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;

6: 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is form God; he has see the Father.

8: 16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.

8: 26 “I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.”

8: 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you [Jews] do what you have heard from your father [devil].

10: 30 I and the Father are one

14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.



Jesus’ friends thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3: 21). Many Jews thought Jesus was mad or a demoniac (Mark 3: 22; John 7: 20; 8: 48; 10: 20). Jesus’ households and the people of Jesus’ hometown did not believe in Jesus and rejected him twice (Luke 4: 28-29; Matthew 13: 55-58). Why did the Son of God (or God himself) not have the ability to proselytize and save his families and hometown’s people? Jesus said to Jews, “Who is of God hears the words of God and that those who do not believe his word belong to the devil” and that “the devil is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8: 44-47).



John

8: 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

8: 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

8: 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

8: 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.



Richard Dawkins mentions an interesting story concerning the origin of religion and schizophrenia in his book God Delusion (pp. 392-393) as follows:



I was led to think about it while reading the American psychologist Julian Jaynes’s The Origin of Consciouness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, a book that is as strange as its title suggests. It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I’m hedging my bets.

Jaynes notes that many people perceive their own thought processes as a kind of dialogue between the ‘self’ and another internal protagonist inside the head. Nowadays we understand that both ‘voices’ are our own—or if we don’t we are treated as mentally ill. This happened, briefly, to Evelyn Waugh. Never one to mince words, Waugh remarked to a friend; ‘I haven’t seen you for a long time, but then I’ve seen so few people because – did you know? – I went mad.’ After his recovery, Waugh wrote a novel, The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, which described his hallucinatory period, and the voices that he heard.

Jaynes’s suggestion is that some time before 1000 BC people in general were unaware that the second voice – the Gilbert Pinfold voice – came from within themselves. They thought the Pinfold voice was a god: Apollo, say, or Astarte or Yahweh or, more probably, minor household god, offering them advice or orders. Jaynes even located the voices of the gods in the opposite hemisphere of the brain from the one that controls audible speech. The ‘breakdown of the bicameral’ mind was, for Jaynes, a historical transition. It was the moment in history when it dawned on people that the external voices that they seemed to be hearing were really internal, Jayne even goes so far as to define this historical transition as the dawning of human consciousness.

There is an ancient Egyptian inscription about the creator god Ptah, which describe the various other gods as variations of Ptah’s ‘voice’ or ‘tongue’. Modern translations reject the literal ‘voice’ and interpret the other gods as ‘objectified conceptions of [Ptha] mind’. Jaynes dismissed such educated readings, preferring to take the literal meaning seriously. The gods were hallucinated voices, speaking inside people’s heads. Jaynes further suggest that such gods evolved from memories of dead kings, who still, in a manner of speaking, retained control over their subjects via imagined voices in their heads. Whether or not you find his thesis plausible, Jaynes’s book is intriguing enough to earn its mention in a book on religion (pp. 392-393).

------------

Jaynes and Dawkins do not use the term “schizophrenia.” But obviously they are talking about schizophrenia. I do not agree with the term historical transition. I mean schizophrenia must have occurred throughout human history in all human ethnic groups, and I do not think 1000 BC was not particularly the period in which men began to aware of the nature of the second voice or Pinfold voice. It is almost certain that Jesus was a schizophrenic who thought the voices he heard were from God.

[ohme]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

The fictional Jesus is an archetype of classic religious schizophrenia.

1: Hears voices in his head; believes that God is speaking to him, Later Christians come to believe that Jesus "is" God and thus even they believe therefore that he was talking to himself.



2: Messianic complex. Believed that only if people believed in him (and only if they were Israelites; a tiny nation on earth at that time) would they enter heaven and that all others would be tortured cruelly in hell.

Well I'm not a follower of the bible. So the schizzophrenia I am referirng to has to do with the inconsistency of message. Though I am willing to ponder on the idea of perfection and love for one's neighbour even from the mouth of a schizzophrenic.

In the context of what the bible states, the messianic complexes are justified. In context with the Jesus that echoes philosophies like Taoism, it seems nonsensical that such a person would then think of themselves as some messiah.

3: Believed that mental and physical illness were caused by demonic possession and that he and his followers could cure them.

Yes this reflects old time thinking. All disorders are a problem of the mind and brain, and nothing to do with demons. And of course we have made some progress in curing them, showing there is a method. The thing about methods is that they can pave the way for better methods, but the bottom line is that we know we can make progress.

4: Believed that his followers could drink deadly poison and it would not harm them.

If they believed this then either they were full of shit, or their bodies and mind could do things we in our mindset have forgotten. Perhaps they could change the atomic configeration of poision, and turn it into Rum.

The Flick of a switch: A wall becomes a window becomes a hologram generator. Any chair becomes a hypercomputer, any rooftop a power or waste treatment plant.

Programmable matter is probably not the next technological revolution, nor even perhaps the one after that. But it's coming, and when it does, it will change our lives as much as any invention ever has. Imagine being able to program matter itself--to change it, with the click of a cursor, from hard to soft, from paper to stone, from fluorescent to super-reflective to invisible. Supported by companies ranging from Levi Strauss to IBM and the Defense Department, solid-state physicists in laboratories at MIT, Harvard, Sun Microsystems, and elsewhere are currently creating arrays of microscopic devices called "quantum dots" that are capable of acting like programmable atoms. They can be configured electronically to replicate the properties of any known atom and then can be changed, as fast as an electrical signal can travel, to have the properties of a different atom. Soon it will be possible not only to engineer into solid matter such unnatural properties as variable magnetism, programmable flavors, or exotic chemical bonds, but also to change these properties at will.

Wil McCarthy visits the laboratories and talks with the researchers who are developing this extraordinary technology; describes how they are learning to control its electronic, optical, thermal, magnetic, and mechanical properties; and tells us where all this will lead. The possibilities are truly magical.

http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm

5: Was homless and peniless and encouraged others to do the same and to become wandering exorcists and fake healers. Many schizophrenics are homeless people.

but is the idea of non materialism and non attachment a sign of a schizzophrenic?

And the Christians who claim to "love" him more than anyone else in history are encouraged to follow in his schizophrenic example.

Well I live on very little, and the little I have I accept a non attachment role with. Believing in Jesus as a kid helped, but I have garnered that attitude from many "scizzophrenics" that have manifested in various cultures over history. The eastern religions tend to have more writings on the idea of non attachment, for example.

There is a guy in London like that who is homeless, mentally ill and just wanders around the West End preaching, but women and men do not come up to him and worship him and follow him; they just think he is mentally ill.

Yep, there's one or two with that who live around here. I've seen egos do great poverty and martydom shows.

We cannot fully understand Jesus without discussing the mental illness—schizophrenia—of Jesus. Schizophrenia is the most common form of psychosis. The patients hear what ordinary people do not hear. Jesus used to claim that he had heard the voice of God or even seen him and therefore he was the son of God. The World Book Encyclopedia (1979 ed.) states about schizophrenia as follows:


… Schizophrenia ranks as one of the most common mental disorders. About 75 per cent of all victims develop the disease between the ages of 15 and 25. Slightly more women than men suffer from schizophrenia. Many schizophrenics develop delusions and behave as though they live in a fantasy world. They may hear “voices” that others cannot hear. The patients may believe that these “voices” carry messages from important people, or even from God. … (Contributed by Philip A. Berger.)

Yes, the scriptwriters certainly gave this Jesus a great speaking part. Although I have turned my head to seeing ordinary people now, who can quite easily share a similar philosophy, and never claim it was bcause they heard God telling them. God is silence anyway. At least I veer toward that idea.

John

5: 30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; ;and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

Well this one has an ordinary human explanation too. It's no more than most judges do, when they do not judge on their own auuthority but "hear" the particualr line from the particluar book that tells them that is the judgment to pass in that case.

In a spiritual context many of us seek to undertsand God's will and to reflect on that when trying to lead our lives.

The above line from John is just basic common behaviour tarted up the "hollywood" way, as the ancients did it back then. Another one:

14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Typical non attachment rhetoric. Some humans understand this, and have forgotten that it came from Jesus or Samantha Smith the schizzophrenic urine drinking model.

Jesus’ friends thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3: 21). Many Jews thought Jesus was mad or a demoniac (Mark 3: 22; John 7: 20; 8: 48; 10: 20).

So what, there's people think I'm weird, on this forum even.

Jesus’ households and the people of Jesus’ hometown did not believe in Jesus and rejected him twice (Luke 4: 28-29; Matthew 13: 55-58). Why did the Son of God (or God himself) not have the ability to proselytize and save his families and hometown’s people? Jesus said to Jews, “Who is of God hears the words of God and that those who do not believe his word belong to the devil” and that “the devil is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8: 44-47).

This is all drama. I'd love to have gotten a job back then, there is so much free license. Although its coming back in a different way.

John

8: 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Again, basic tribal BS, written by some label wearing religiouso against another tribe who wore another label.

Richard Dawkins mentions an interesting story concerning the origin of religion and schizophrenia in his book God Delusion (pp. 392-393) as follows:



I was led to think about it while reading the American psychologist Julian Jaynes’s The Origin of Consciouness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, a book that is as strange as its title suggests. It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I’m hedging my bets.

Jaynes notes that many people perceive their own thought processes as a kind of dialogue between the ‘self’ and another internal protagonist inside the head. Nowadays we understand that both ‘voices’ are our own—or if we don’t we are treated as mentally ill. This happened, briefly, to Evelyn Waugh. Never one to mince words, Waugh remarked to a friend; ‘I haven’t seen you for a long time, but then I’ve seen so few people because – did you know? – I went mad.’ After his recovery, Waugh wrote a novel, The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold, which described his hallucinatory period, and the voices that he heard.

Jaynes’s suggestion is that some time before 1000 BC people in general were unaware that the second voice – the Gilbert Pinfold voice – came from within themselves. They thought the Pinfold voice was a god: Apollo, say, or Astarte or Yahweh or, more probably, minor household god, offering them advice or orders. Jaynes even located the voices of the gods in the opposite hemisphere of the brain from the one that controls audible speech. The ‘breakdown of the bicameral’ mind was, for Jaynes, a historical transition. It was the moment in history when it dawned on people that the external voices that they seemed to be hearing were really internal, Jayne even goes so far as to define this historical transition as the dawning of human consciousness.

There is an ancient Egyptian inscription about the creator god Ptah, which describe the various other gods as variations of Ptah’s ‘voice’ or ‘tongue’. Modern translations reject the literal ‘voice’ and interpret the other gods as ‘objectified conceptions of [Ptha] mind’. Jaynes dismissed such educated readings, preferring to take the literal meaning seriously. The gods were hallucinated voices, speaking inside people’s heads. Jaynes further suggest that such gods evolved from memories of dead kings, who still, in a manner of speaking, retained control over their subjects via imagined voices in their heads. Whether or not you find his thesis plausible, Jaynes’s book is intriguing enough to earn its mention in a book on religion (pp. 392-393).

------------

Jaynes and Dawkins do not use the term “schizophrenia.” But obviously they are talking about schizophrenia. I do not agree with the term historical transition. I mean schizophrenia must have occurred throughout human history in all human ethnic groups, and I do not think 1000 BC was not particularly the period in which men began to aware of the nature of the second voice or Pinfold voice. It is almost certain that Jesus was a schizophrenic who thought the voices he heard were from God.[/i]

I can agree to most of this, and also suggest that Jesus could only have been elevated to such a status by placing such schizzophrenic traits in him.

I think there were fairly awake humans back then too though, and the mind sets were nothing like ours. Most humans nowadays , who could be transported back 2000 years, would be worshipped by the ancients back then, not only the schizzophrenics.

I mentioned free license back then. However, the subject matter wasn't that wide was it? Creative writers didn't go far beyond stories of the gods.