Is religion a mental disorder?

ServantOfTheLamb
Well first and for most manuscript evidence makes a pretty strong case for the Bible being pretty accurate to its original. If you argue with my first statement then you cannot believe you know anything of the Greek or Roman myths seeing as how the manuscript evidence for at least the NT I think they were imaginative, but they don't fit what we know of the world today. Jesus wasn't a person, but I would agree people cannot do any of those things. Did I say the ideas of a turtle or Atlas were ridiculous? No. I said they don't fit the description of the physical world we see.

Funny.... Jesus seemed to be quite a lot like a person in the Gospels I read.


Not to mention the fact that he repeatedly stated that his followers could do ALL he did (and more.) And if you believe the gospel accounts, to a degree, they did (go on to do so.)


IMO that negates the "he only performed miracles because he was god in the flesh" argument.



[Not to mention that Jesus claimed he was a son of god (not god, himself) and further, taught that we are all sons of god (as even seen in how Jesus taught us to pray-- the Lord's Prayer, beginning "OUR father...") It was John who called him "only" son, and it was men that called him god. I do not believe this view accords, at all, with what Christ actually says in the Gospels. But that is somewhat aside from the point...]

C21H30O2I
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Yes, I understand but Christians do and will ignore their values, when they need too. There is a Christian militia, called The Lions of the Canyon. Right now in Syria. and even some Alawite and Sunni Muslims have joined them.

There are Christians who do not believe in turning the left cheek, but in their turn enter into the battle of survival that forces itself on all Syrians, regardless of their religious background.

There's a poster on the website, expressing an absolute spirit of Christian militancy.
And also

A general call — Whoever believes in Me, even though he dies, he lives

There's also a donate button, to rescue and save Christians lives.

Christians Raise Arms To Fight Holy War Against Muslims

Throughout its two-thousand-year history, Christians have justified, rationalized, restrained, and informed the act of war and the conduct of warfare. They have, in various times and by various means, both upheld and departed from biblical standards, and both ecclesiastical and secular leaders have appealed to Christianity's teachings for personal and national guidance and support.

The apostle Paul wrote, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18). Yet, history and headlines provide ample proof that "peace" cannot always be the Christian response to the evil that people and nations perpetrate.

Onward Christian Soldiers?
Christian Perspectives on War

A paper, By Timothy J. Demy, Th.D.
Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy

Just saying....

This is an Appeal to Spite and is a fallacious form of reasoning.

The Appeal to Spite Fallacy is a fallacy in which spite is substituted for evidence when an "argument" is made against a claim. This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.
Therefore claim C is false (or true)
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because a feeling of spite does not count as evidence for or against a claim. This is quite clear in the following case:
"Bill claims that the earth revolves around the sun.
But remember that dirty trick he pulled on you last week.
Now, doesn't my claim that the sun revolves around the earth make sense to you?"
Of course, there are cases in which a claim that evokes a feeling of spite or malice can serve as legitimate evidence. However, it should be noted that the actual feelings of malice or spite are not evidence. The following is an example of such a situation:
Jill: "I think I'll vote for Jane to be treasurer of NOW."
Vicki: "Remember the time that your purse vanished at a meeting last year?"
Jill: "Yes." Vicki:"Well, I just found out that she stole your purse and stole some other stuff from people."
Jill: "I'm not voting for her!"
In this case, Jill has a good reason not to vote for Jane. Since a treasurer should be honest, a known thief would be a bad choice. As long as Jill concludes that she should vote against Jane because she is a thief and not just out of spite, her reasoning would not be fallacious.

Now be careful not to attribute those Christian's actions to God or even the Bible, because that would be an Ad Hominem.

iwilliam

ServantOfTheLamb
Well first and for most manuscript evidence makes a pretty strong case for the Bible being pretty accurate to its original. If you argue with my first statement then you cannot believe you know anything of the Greek or Roman myths seeing as how the manuscript evidence for at least the NT I think they were imaginative, but they don't fit what we know of the world today. Jesus wasn't a person, but I would agree people cannot do any of those things. Did I say the ideas of a turtle or Atlas were ridiculous? No. I said they don't fit the description of the physical world we see.

Funny.... Jesus seemed to be quite a lot like a person in the Gospels I read.


Not to mention the fact that he repeatedly stated that his followers could do ALL he did (and more.) And if you believe the gospel accounts, to a degree, they did (go on to do so.)


IMO that negates the "he only performed miracles because he was god in the flesh" argument.

edit on 16-11-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)

I see open ended statements with no references.

We'll clean out your soul and your wallet too.

reply to post by beatbox



In order for the powerful to remain so, they must label folks. They must eliminate the threat and they do it under the guise of sanity/insanity.

If those 'conspiracy theories' were so off base, one would assume that the actions of said person would be obvious. However, those with much to lose hiding behind the curtain, the conspiracy 'nuts' need to be derailed. And what better way to do it than with mental health issues. Since most things surrounding mental health issues are broad and even unable to be diagnosed with 100% certainty, the powers that be see it as an easy scapegoat.

I once was told by a coworker many moons ago, that if you happen to be in a major city, and are feeling a tad bit uncomfortable, start acting 'crazy.' She said no one wants to mess with a 'crazy' lady. Obviously much has changed in the awareness of mental health issues, but the story still is the same. People fear the unknown. And 'crazy' may not be known to them.

reply to post by beatbox


Religion has played a huge role in development and evolution of society. It has made the difference between warring tribes and empires.

Religion is necessary for humans to live in an orderly society.

There is a case that religion has been used by vested interests. But that is not reason enough to junk the religion.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


You're full of a lot of bluster, spending time and energy justifying your faith. But it's pretty much off topic for this thread, trying to prove that your faith is rooted in reality, logic and truth. But, to me, you're making a strong case for "disorder".

reply to post by GargIndia


One of those statements is not like the other ones....

blueyezblkdragon
We'll clean out your soul and your wallet too.

Two things - prostitution and slavery is a sureshot road to decline and death of a civilization.

Always remember - God is there and his justice is inviolable. There is no earthly king who can escape God's justice.

0zzymand0s
reply to post by GargIndia

 

One of those statements is not like the other ones....

Jesus was a good man, and he did teach humans good things.

It is the rulers who are power-hungry and vile and try to manipulate people to continue their rule.

Honesty, compassion etc taught by religions are necessary for order in society. If every person becomes a thief, can society function???

I said that we must be careful about people who are manipulative; who are using religion for selfish ends.

Religion is lame, tells people how to think, what to do, and creates codependency.

Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (typically narcissism or drug addiction); and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on the needs of, or control of, another.[1] It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.[2] Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including family, work, friendship, and also romantic, peer or community relationships.[2] Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, or control patterns.[2] Narcissists are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent.

Spirituality > Religiosity.

reply to post by DMFL1133


The concept of family has come from religion. A man gets married to a woman for LIFE etc. There is co-dependence between man and woman, and between them and their children. But it is necessary.

Humans also have a structured society where different people have different functions and thus are inter-dependent.

These concepts are necessary for efficient functioning of human society.

reply to post by GargIndia


You arranged your three statements deliberately so that the whole would appear to the uninitiated as a kind of logical proof. The problem is statement #2, which can be argued any number of different ways, depending on your relative position in space/time. For example: Perhaps religion WAS necessary in the past to keep the human population under control, but what if there are more efficient ways to do so now? I could for example argue that the dual prod of "fear" (of terrorism, or any "other") + rampant "consumerism" is far more effective at enforcing social norms 2013 than any particular religion. Frankly: in the land of ten thousand "channels" each individual belief-system becomes its own marketing niche. There is plenty of room for religions -- of all shapes and sizes -- as well as channels featuring the psychics, UFO's, Bigfoot, et al. The demonstrable fact that people can be driven to act in the best interests of the state through *any* significantly developed medium or message, regardless of moral component is evidence enough to me that your proof may be somewhat flawed.

reply to post by GargIndia


Even if true, these concepts can be reinforced or degraded through selective marketing to target niche's. In this case, religious people of one brand or another. The same messages can be reinforced or degraded through "Dancing with the Stars," or any number of niche choices we make through voluntary self-identification. Reinforced and degraded, because duality and conflict boost profitability.

"Until there was (pop), you only had god."

--Bowie

I'm thinking there is a deeper lesson here, and arguing over the finer points of our faith in sacred cows is probably counterproductive, if not a little "crazy."

GargIndia
reply to post by DMFL1133

 

The concept of family has come from religion. A man gets married to a woman for LIFE etc. There is co-dependence between man and woman, and between them and their children. But it is necessary.

Humans also have a structured society where different people have different functions and thus are inter-dependent.

These concepts are necessary for efficient functioning of human society.

It is awesome you mentioned family, marriage, etc for LIFE, but here is why religion is so lame in the US for Christians ...

Christians tend run around condemning same sex marriage; but, they have no problems remarrying and staying in the constant state of sin due too 'no fault divorces:'

Matthew 5:32 - But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and hoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 19:9 - And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. Luke 16:18 - Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

If you get a chance, ascertain how many Christians who are remarried in a no fault situation and their attitudes towards same sex marriage.

Around here in the bible belt, the majority of Christians have remarried, but never look inwards; and instead, they want to focus on God, Gays, and Guns.

I am only pointing out how religion - in this case either through silence and/or indirect approval by ministers marrying people after no fault divorces - tells people what to do, how to think, but fails a lot of times to apply the same metrics towards themselves.

I will admit my bias towards religion because I detest it; however, I love Christians who follow their bible and does not judge others.

Matthew 7 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

reply to post by DMFL1133

Dear DMFL1133,

One of the things I admire about the Catholic Church is it's strong support of marriage and opposition to divorce and remarriage. Of course, there are Catholics who don't accept the Church's teaching on that point, but that is a mark against them, not the Church.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by iwilliam


A lucid and excellent piece of writing here. Nice.

Yes? I'm going with yes.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Some Christians ignore their value system but that does not mean religion is a mental illness or that religion is the cause of 'all wars' as some irresponsible people argue. History shows this 'all wars' argument to be a fallacy - a fallacy perpetrated by people who simply repeat what they hear. It is a meme.