BREAKING NEWS: Jesus Declared Insane!

Monday, November 5, 2007 – from The Association of Rational Jesus Seekers Press.

In years past, evangelical Christians like Lee Strobel have boasted greatly about their belief that it is possible to have Jesus legally declared the Son of God in a court of law. Granting that conclusion, an up-and-coming team of textual critics and legal analysts known as The Association of Rational Jesus Seekers (TARJS) has banded together for precisely the purpose of expounding on such important biblical matters. The organization discovered that if Jesus can be legally declared to be the living and risen Son of God in a court of law, then he can also be declared legally insane in a court of law.

Breaths were held Monday night at the Kaczynski Memorial Auditorium in Chicago, Illinois as the council of over 200 came together to render a verdict on the highly disputed sanity of Jesus. Believers of all faiths could be seen biting their nails, anxiously awaiting this team of some of the ripest biblical scholars on the planet to reach their weighty conclusion. The verdict would forever stain the already tarnished reputation of Jesus the Christ—this verdict being surpassed in negativity only by the Talmudic accusation that Jesus was the product of Mary opening her legs to a weary Roman soldier one fateful night. Finally, the waiting was over and the verdict was in: Jesus Christ, known to Christians as “the Messiah,” is legally insane!

Gasps could be heard coming from nervous, sectioned off groups of believers at the announcement that their Lord and Savior was indeed the screwy lunatic they believed he was not. The silent tension in the air gave way to muffled grunts of revulsion and short, steaming outbursts against members of the association for their “blasphemous” rendering. “We have not seen such irreverence since The Jesus Seminar” one attendant said. Others stated that they agreed with the verdict: “Jesus may have been a compassionate human being, but he was definitely coo-coo for cocoa puffs!” So dense was the atmosphere that the council, having decided to leave the building quietly, was compelled to stay and give a lengthy verbal defense on the specific reasons behind the giving of the verdict. The speaker of the council, Dr. David Eardman, declined comment initially, but due to the overwhelming pressure from red-faced evangelicals, eventually elected to answer some questions from the audience.

“The reasons we declared Jesus unhinged had to do with his unstable behavior in cursing a fig tree for not having fruit on it (Mark 11:12-14), for sending soul-raping demons into a herd of two thousand swine, causing their needless deaths (Mark 5:11-13), and for his famous temple conniption fit (John 2:14-17).” Dr. Eardman said.

Mark 11:13-14 says, “13. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever.” Dr. Eardman asked, “Can any thinking person deny that this behavior is insane?” He continued, “Why would the Lord of heaven and earth expect to find fruit on a fig tree out of season? This is the first evidence of demonstrable insanity.” But the team wasn’t yet through showing that Jesus was a fruitcake. They then moved on to what was said to be an even worse example of a sick, twisted mind.

Dr. Chamberlain, another member of TARJS and Dr. Eardman’s closest friend said, “Why Jesus agreed to go along with a request of Hellbound demons who lost the great war in heaven isn’t clear, but it is clear that Jesus was no animal rights activist. And he must have had a special dislike for pigs. Instead of sending the demons off to Hell where they belonged, Jesus sent them on a short trip inside the bodies of sweet little pigs and piglets that were subsequently drowned in the river. Perhaps Jesus didn’t think through that when the pigs died the demons would again be freed to wreak havoc on earth, and the owner of the swine would be out a lot of money. This is crazy behavior. I’ve never seen anything like it outside of a sanitarium! We have no choice but to declare Jesus insane and to warn others to stay away from him when he comes back to earth someday.”

Following the councilmen’s comments was a firestorm of heated debate, which reached a climax when uppity, New York Dr. Gregory Barnes referred to Jesus as “a male menopausal, foaming-at-the-mouth, psychopath,” for which he later apologized. “Maybe I went a little too far on that one,” Dr. Barnes was heard to say. The reference was made concerning Jesus’ throwing over the moneychanger’s tables and ruining good temple business, rather than resorting like he should have to legal means to stop what he believed was religious thievery. Dr. Chamberlain told us, “The real reason Jesus was as mad as a wet hornet was simply because the Jews in the temple refused to cut him in on the temple profits!”

Dr. Eardman then concluded the matter: “I’m afraid the conclusion is unavoidable. Jesus is insane—and we are not the only ones who think so. Even his family thought Jesus was nuttier than a fudge sundae. Mark 3:21 says ‘When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind.’” When his appeals to reason failed to convince the religious herd, Dr. Eardman made yet one more rational appeal: “Do we really want to entrust our souls to a man who had a disciple who ran around with nothing but a towel on?” (John 21:7) Seeing no way to reach the intolerant mob, the meeting abruptly ended when the frustrated doctor and his scholars walked out of the auditorium.

(JH)

47 comments:

Steven Bently said...

If Jesus even existed in the first place, he would have had no other choice to believe that he was sent form a god. Since the three nameless wisemen came through and confirmed with gifts that he was indeed the christ child. This deed also would have also convenced Mary and Joseph that they were the saviors parents. so naturally they would have told Jesus that he was the son of god all his days.

Then later as he got older he could see the reaction of people whom wanted so much to believe that a massiah had arrived to save their souls from sin, they would bow and pray and to just touch his garment.

So after a lot of much attention, he himself presumed he was therefore himself sent by a god to save the world from their sins.

Then he would walk up to people whom had an illness, of course naturally in the overly optimistic observers mind they were healed, to claim otherwise, would have been blasphemous, a very heinous crime.

What I cannot understand is why people cannot see that the bible was written by people with a world view of 2000 years ago.

Jesus and people 2000 years ago thought that diseases were caused by demons and the wrath of a god, we now know, with the invention of the microscope that diseases are caused by germs, viruses and microbes.

Why is this not obvious to everyone living today?

Anonymous said...

What I cannot understand is why people cannot see that the bible was written by people with a world view of 2000 years ago.

Exactly!

James F. McGrath said...

I must say I found this post rather disappointing. It is simply a rehash of things Bertrand Russell wrote in his "Why I Am Not A Christian", and that piece of his approaches the Bible on the same terms as the Christian fundamentalists, in a crudely superficial way.

It causes me much dismay when those who claim they are rejecting Christianity because it is irrational then approach the Bible in the same irrational way the fundamentalists do.

Rather than reproduce it here, let me share a link to my blog where I talk about the story of the demoniac and the one about the fig tree as something other than historical accounts.

The comment by Steven Bently, while right about the difference of worldview, likewise treats as historical stories that cannot be historically confirmed, such as that about the wise men (found only in Matthew's Gospel).

Whether one is a Christian or an atheist or anything else is a different matter. What I'm talking about here is the need to take historical scholarship on the Biblical literature into account in discussing these issues.

GordonBlood said...

Ugh... things like this are textual proof that atheism and rationality are two very seperate and distinct things...

Anonymous said...

Michael Card already knew!

Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind

For even His family said He was mad
And the priest say a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane

Chorus
We in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
And we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable
Come be a fool as well

So come lose our life for a carpenter's son
For a man who had died for a dream
And you'll feel the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see

Chorus

So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable, come be a fool as well.



What I cannot understand is why people cannot see that the bible was written by people with a world view of 2000 years ago.

I guess this pretty much tells us that anything we know now is useless. 2,000 years from now people will judge our generation by our lack of physical knowledge and think we are archaic. Yet, we make decisions based on what we know in our limited capacity. What if you are wrong and in 2,000 years Jesus comes back?


So after a lot of much attention, he himself presumed he was therefore himself sent by a god to save the world from their sins.

Are you saying He thought He was a Sin Eater?

Jesus and people 2000 years ago thought that diseases were caused by demons and the wrath of a god, we now know, with the invention of the microscope that diseases are caused by germs, viruses and microbes.

Not all people thought diseases were caused by demons. Even in the Bible a distinction is made between epilepsy and demon possession. Not understanding germs didn't stop the Egyptians from using moldy bread to help infection. Without the long history of discovery, science would have no foundation to stand on just as without the discoveries made today, the future of science would not have it's steel girdings. THIS is the most important thing we can learn from history. Don't discount the beliefs of those who have gone before assuming they are insane or stupid or devoid of knowledge. It is because of them we are here today, standing on their shoulders and making new paths to forge ahead.

Besides...any psychologist will affirm that ALL of us display behaviors at times that would be considered insane. It's a pretty broad brush with many complex relational issues. It's presumptuous to try to say any person alive so long ago was insane with no examination.

Anonymous said...

While the point of questioning the text is well taken, "insane" isn't exactly a valid diagnosis.

Martin Gamble said...

Right on, Jennifer!
Bless you

goprairie said...

oh, yeah, the words of a hymn and the vague threat that WHAT IF Jesus comes back are convincing me . . .
i can't beleive you are all going off the deep end taking this seriously. lighten up! it it amusing and interesting, yes. but worth getting all lathered up over?

Anonymous said...

Martin,
Thank you for the blessing!

goprarie,

You're right, it was written in an amusing style and I didn't meant to take away from that. I was mostly responding to Steven's comment. I think Jesus would be able to handle the article with a chuckle...but then He'd probably have expounded with a parable. :)

My comment about Jesus coming back was NOT meant as a threat. I would never try to scare someone into a belief in God. I was simply making the point that we are in a stream of time and not all of the information is in. If Jesus coming back is seen as a threat I guess that would be a personal perspective.

goprairie said...

"If Jesus coming back is seen as a threat I guess that would be a personal perspective."
Nope - just a sensitivity because every atheist is subjected repeatedly to the ol' Paschal's Wager nonsense by Christians trying to talk sense into us coming back. And it is often used in discussion and debate by Christians as their last stand that they think means they win.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

As far as cursing a fig tree that bore no fruit out of season, to me, Y'shua was drawing a parallel to a life lived governed by outside circumstances and influences (reactive and perishing) rather than by faith which ultimately demonstrates an inner component of proactive peacefulness.

As far as driving demons into pigs, Y'shua gave the demons what they requested, which was to get away from Him. Y'shua granted what they requested and in doing so, set a human being free. If one is more concerned about the welfare of pigs over the condition of a fellow man being tormented, I'm certain Y'shua will have no problem allowing that person to cohabitate with such.

About the temple table turning episode - I believe Y'shua was adamant that God be portrayed in a way that showed He doesn't exploit people. The human depiction of the spiritual realm (especially by those people with social authority and power over others) was important - to demonstrate no other motive than salvation and grace.

While we are better enabled to scrutinize and observe more adequately nowadays than those living 2,000 years ago, and have increased our capacity to observe and to invent, I'm not certain all of our accumulated knowledge has equated into producing a more people friendly environment globally. It's difficult for me to reconcile the benefits of our using manmade invention with its obvious manifestations of environmental breakdown. I believe Y'shua points us towards repenting into faithfulness - faith that expresses itself in acts of love, (humility and relinquishing proprietary pursuits that are insensitive and devalue life).

MMM

anon said...

And this is what scholars waste their time on? These verses hardly show insanity.

"The reasons we declared Jesus unhinged had to do with his unstable behavior in cursing a fig tree for not having fruit on it (Mark 11:12-14)"

Jesus was making a point here, if you don't bear fruit for God he's going to cut you off the branch. I don't understand the whole meaning but that should be the basics.

"for sending soul-raping demons into a herd of two thousand swine, causing their needless deaths (Mark 5:11-13)"

And...if he really did this then he had at least some sort of spiritual power, and spirits do exist. He could have sent the demons elsewhere, but perhaps he granted their wish for some unknown reason.

"Instead of sending the demons off to Hell where they belonged"

The demons aren't going to hell yet. Remember, it will happen in the end times.

"and for his famous temple conniption fit (John 2:14-17)."

What do you think he's going to do when he sees his holy place being disgraced? Buy an animal for a sacrifice? No... remember, God is just and he isn't going to allow his temple to be defiled.

"Mark 3:21 says When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind."

I guess they didn't realize that he really was the Son of God. Remember, they had a hard time believing this for a while, even after his death until he came back. It doesn't come as a surprise then that when they saw him doing miracles they thought something was up, especially this early in their journeys with him.

Summing it up, this is another weak attempt to discredit Jesus. Any ordinary person (like me :D) can give reasonable answers to their claims.

goprairie said...

"the Kaczynski Memorial Auditorium in Chicago, Illinois"
named after Ted? or someone else in his family?
that was a clue, right?

Joe E. Holman said...

goprairie said...

"the Kaczynski Memorial Auditorium in Chicago, Illinois"
named after Ted? or someone else in his family? that was a clue, right?"


My reply...

Yes, it was!

Good job, goprairie! You're on the ball!

(JH)

Karl Betts said...

Since we cannot prove what Jesus actually said, how can we prove that he was insane?

First we must idtentify the real historical Jesus before we can examine his phychological state.

Good luck with that!

anon said...

Karl Betts said:

"Since we cannot prove what Jesus actually said, how can we prove that he was insane?

First we must idtentify the real historical Jesus before we can examine his phychological state.

Good luck with that!"

This is just in case he did indeed exist, so atheists have another excuse to not believe, lol.

Joe E. Holman said...

Master Jedi Dan said...

"This is just in case he did indeed exist, so atheists have another excuse to not believe, lol."

My reply...

Excuse to not believe?? Making such statements really goes to show just how little you know about struggling with doubts and unbelief.

No, this piece of satire is to conjoinly highlight in a creative and unusual way the absurd claims of evangelicals like Strobel and those bizarre instances of absurdity in the gospels. But of course, the power of my writing is lost on some!

(JH)

anon said...

"Excuse to not believe?? Making such statements really goes to show just how little you know about struggling with doubts and unbelief.

No, this piece of satire is to conjoinly highlight in a creative and unusual way the absurd claims of evangelicals like Strobel and those bizarre instances of absurdity in the gospels. But of course, the power of my writing is lost on some!"

I am still struggling with unbelief, very much from personal experience. Absurd claims? You've named three examples from the Bible. Most sane people lose it at least that many times in their life. I don't really see how you've beat down Strobel in this post. Several of us have posted refutations to the arguments, but you really haven't addressed them.

Joe E. Holman said...

Master Jedi Dan said...

"I am still struggling with unbelief, very much from personal experience."

My reply...

Everyone says this. We atheists get contacted all the time with "honest questions," from people "in struggle with serious doubts." The tree is known by its fruit. You may be suffering some kind of personal cognitive dissonance, but to actually doubt the integrity of the Bible and the supernatural claims it makes you show no evidence of.

The idea that to you we atheists are making "excuses" to not believe tells all. You can say whatever the hell you want about how yearning and sincere your mind is--and that is the only real reason why you refer to yourself in struggle at all--because you know it makes you seem more open-minded to others. Doesn't fool me for a second. So don't say you know doubts if you really and truly don't.


Master Jedi Dan said...

"Absurd claims? You've named three examples from the Bible. Most sane people lose it at least that many times in their life."

My reply...

Uh, we are talking about God here, and God would not come in human form, much less do the crazy things he is said to have done. A "God" does not break down or get angry because those are things that logically come from impotence, a trait of limited beings, not God. But this concern doesn't really bother you, does it?


Master Jedi Dan said...

"I don't really see how you've beat down Strobel in this post. Several of us have posted refutations to the arguments, but you really haven't addressed them."

My reply...

Well, not yet. But you are telling me more about yourself in these comments than you realize. You just again confirmed than you do not understand doubt, nor atheism, and you have shown me that you are very new to this sort of debate.

Do you want me to plop down some new argument that forever gets hailed as a great disproof by both believers and unbelievers alike?? Do you want me to "wow" the world with some stunning, new revelation that no infidel came up with before?? It seems that you do, and that is a trait of a young, modern zealous Christian who thinks Christianity has withstood her critics by pretending that older attacks against her did no damage. Very common tendency.

You have a lot to learn; good criticism is never really new. The same criticisms against Christianity have been around since the time the religion surfaced. They have not changed, and the key to being an effective critic is to find knew ways to get your audience to look at the avenues of criticism and see their force. That is what I have done, but you act as though no one should be able to give a reply to what I have said. That's never true in any area of apologetics.

Apologists will always have "answers," and like the "answers" in these comments, a skeptical audience won't buy them. Telling me that cursing the fig tree was "figurative" or "non-historical" is only to make an excuse to hide the language of Mark. And btw, the only way a parable of faith could have been made about greater faith from cursing a fig tree was if the tree was supposed to have had fruit on it and didn't. But it's the text that makes Jesus an idiot, and not I.

Concerning the demons Jesus contended with, the criticism is justified; one only negotiates with someone of equal or just slightly greater power--otherwise, there is no point in coming to an agreement at all if one side sufficiently overpowers the other. Yet Jesus made a deal with those who were beneath him, and the property of the swine owners suffered for that.

So my criticisms are just, and the usual pleas about Jesus "making points" and "figurative language" or "teaching lessons" to the disciples won't help here.

(JH)

anon said...

"Well, not yet. But you are telling me more about yourself in these comments than you realize. You just again confirmed than you do not understand doubt, nor atheism, and you have shown me that you are very new to this sort of debate.

Do you want me to plop down some new argument that forever gets hailed as a great disproof by both believers and unbelievers alike?? Do you want me to "wow" the world with some stunning, new revelation that no infidel came up with before?? It seems that you do, and that is a trait of a young, modern zealous Christian who thinks Christianity has withstood her critics by pretending that older attacks against her did no damage. Very common tendency."

Admittedly, I am young and have much to learn. But I'm not a fundie. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I enjoy playing the antagonist once in a while, especially when it seems that people haven't done their research well. I'm at the RRS (note the lack of the theist label) under the same name, and I enjoy most of the content on this blog. This, however, is poor research to me. All these people have done is take a few verses and make a claim. You can't really come to such a strong verdict from three verses, you need more evidence.

Valerie Tarico said...

If the gospel stories were actually historical records,the diagnosis would be quite specific: paranoid schizophrenia. The sequential progression in the gospel stories from premorbid inspiring charismatic religious fervor to grandiose claims of special relation to God and threats toward enemies . . . The parallels to known high-IQ, charismatic schizophrenics are quite impressive. Think Koresh, think Jones, think Mansen.

There is little reason, however, to believe that the gospels provide the historical story of a single iconoclastic rabbi.

This brings me to CS Lewis's trilemma, the fatal flaw of which is that it assumes the historicity of the gospels. However, it is flawed in another way -- it denigrates insanity. It fails to recognize the brilliant beauty, wisdom and charisma of many who move in and out of mental illness. Lewis assumes that because the Jesus of the gospels is so often deeply lucid and deeply moral he could not be insane. Ergo divinity. Lewis misunderstands psychology as severely as he misunderstands criteria for historicity. On his behalf, I should point out that neither scholarly limitation is uncommon for someone whose professional expertise is literature.

For those who are interested: 295.3 Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type

The essential feature of the Paranoid Type of Schizophrenia is the presence of prominent delusions or auditory hallucinations in the context of a relative preservation of cognitive functioning and affect. Delusions are typically persecutory or grandiose, or both, but delusions with other themes (e.g. religiosity, jealousy, or somatization) may also occur. The delusions may be multiple but are usually organized around a coherent theme. Hallucinations also are typically related to the content of the delusional theme. The individual may have a superior and patronizing manner and either a stilted formal quality or extreme intensity in interpersonal interactions. . . . . Onset tends to be later in life than the other types of Schizophrenia, and the distinguishing characteristics may be more stable over time. These individuals usually show little or no impairment on neurophyshological or other cognitive testing.

goprairie said...

m.j.d.: you still think it is a real news story don't you?

anon said...

"goprairie said...

m.j.d.: you still think it is a real news story don't you?"

Well...oh shit, I guess I did. I wondered what you meant about your first comment, but that's what I get for not having experience, serves me right. It was still fun debating it though.

Joe E. Holman said...

Master Jedi Dan said...

"Admittedly, I am young and have much to learn."

My reply...

And it shows, baby! It shows!


Master Jedi Dan said...

"But I'm not a fundie. I'm an agnostic atheist, but I enjoy playing the antagonist once in a while, especially when it seems that people haven't done their research well."

My reply...

Agnostic atheist, huh? Teehee!

Well, I don't care what title you are using or who you are with. If you are with whom you say you are with, then your pointlessly trollish conduct here and your lack of forthrightness up to now understandably causes me to doubt your legitimacy.

But honestly, my hat's off to you; when you get called out, it's a smart move to pretend you were one of us all along! Not bad!

Master Jedi Dan said...

"All these people have done is take a few verses and make a claim. You can't really come to such a strong verdict from three verses, you need more evidence."

My reply...

Wow! I am scoring points left and right today!

Uh, buddy, the article was satire. I wrote it to hone in on certain off-kilter and slightly humorous nuances of Jesus' character.

But as far as needing more evidence, why? Based on the terribly little info. we have of Jesus, isn't it at least safe to say that making deals with demons, throwing over tables, and cursing fig trees for not having figs on them out of season are things that certainly WOULDN'T be found in the holy book of a deity and his god-man son if they were real? Can't we at least agree there, Mr. RRS?

(JH)

anon said...

I'm not going say anything else...Yeah, I was stupid and jumped the gun, sorry about that. But no, I seriously don't believe, you're probably not going to believe me on that but whatever, and I hope that in the future my comments are better thought out, my apologies Mr. Holman.

Joe E. Holman said...

Master Jedi Dan said...

"my apologies Mr. Holman."

My reply...

Accepted

(JH)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Valerie wrote: "If the gospel stories were actually historical records,the diagnosis would be quite specific: paranoid schizophrenia"

If one takes the gospel as historical record, one would note that those in that era were able to discern mental illness, but the ultimate determination and accusation against Y'shua was that of blasphemy.

If Y'shua were ineffectual I doubt He would have been followed or scrutinized by the Pharisees.

Steven Bently said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Bently said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
soulblade2007 said...

Wow, Jesus was found insane? Gee... didn't see that coming, it's not like people during that time weren't convinced of that already. Sorry for my sarcasm, it just appears to me that we are starting to see the same arguments that have been argued in the past. C'mon, Jesus being declared insane, is that really a revelation (notice the lower-case "r" in revelation, no pun intended he he)? If we go with what the Bible says, Jesus shouldn't have had a "preliminary hearing," he was convicted at face value. FYI, I can go either way on this Christianity business; as for now, I believe in Him, at least superficially; I'm not a Christian zealot who draws up fake tears in order to convince people that I was suddenly "moved" by the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I search for the truth. If there is no God, so be it; if there is one, I will bow to him. I want "proof" people; speaking to both Christians and Atheists. Right now I'm wavering. This is the time to win one more person to your cause, and you each have a head start... ready... set... go! (again, speaking to both Christians and Atheists).

Joe E. Holman said...

soulblade2007 said...

"This is the time to win one more person to your cause, and you each have a head start... ready... set... go! (again, speaking to both Christians and Atheists).

My reply...

*organ music in background*

My child, you are already fighting for my cause!

Muhahahahahahahaa!

Anonymous said...

Valerie,
Going with your premise that the gospel narrative is historical...just for the sake of common ground, Jesus lacked the fear that always accompanies schrizophenia. He was not motivated by fear nor did He work to instill fear in others. When He mentioned hell, it was not in the context of gaining control for Himself through manipulation, nor was it to protect himself.

How is this in line with paranoid schizophrenia?

Anonymous said...

"As far as cursing a fig tree that bore no fruit out of season, to me, Y'shua was drawing a parallel to a life lived governed by outside circumstances and influences (reactive and perishing) rather than by faith which ultimately demonstrates an inner component of proactive peacefulness."

Wow! That is reading A LOT into a simple gospel story. Talk about imagining things!

That's the problems with Christianity: in order to make sense of it, we have to literally read 10% and actually imagine 90%. There is no other way to make sense of the Bible but by putting our own meaning into it by using MENTAL GYMNASTICS.

Personally, I was sick and tired of twisting the "holy" book's writings to fit my rational mind. That's why I left, so I doubt it that any one will shoo me back by making me contort my brain to think the way they do.

Didn't Paul write something about "private interpretations" of the scriptures?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again, Lorena!

I am wondering - when you were a Christian, what did you believe the good news was exactly? How did you convey that message??
Was God a crazy deity that went around cursing fig trees or was He inspiring people to examine their own lives and the resulting consequences of living without faith?

He instructed His disciples that it was not faith if we live and love only under favorable circumstances.

Joe E. Holman said...

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

"Was God a crazy deity that went around cursing fig trees or was He inspiring people to examine their own lives and the resulting consequences of living without faith?"

My reply...

Yep, that's it. Real nice! Redirect the focus of the discussion away from why Jesus acted a certain way at a certain time and place to a sweet, smiling, mental image of Jesus in your head who is always just and good. Yeah, real nice!

(JH)

Anonymous said...

"He instructed His disciples that it was not faith if we live and love only under favorable circumstances."

MMM,

But that is what faith is. It is being able to "imagine" the things that aren't there.

When it comes to practical issues, it is, perhaps, acceptable. For example, it can't be a bad idea to picture yourself holding the job you want.

But adding profound meaning to a plain, old story is imagining things that just aren't there. I could do the same with just about any book. I could even start a new religion--like the guy who started Scientology did.

Even if Jesus exists and is alive in heaven sitting at the right hand of God, I am sure he doesn't like it when people READ all kinds of stuff--good or not--into whatever he's said to have said.

Please don't lose sight of the fact that there is no proof that Jesus said anything. We only know for sure that somebody wrote the stuff.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Joe, I hadn't considered 'sweet and smiling" in reference to Y'shua before. Nonetheless, I do love some very sweet and smiling people :-).

Lorena, you believe that I am reading too much into scripture, but I used to navigate life the way I would approach scripture - from a distance and at face value. That lifestyle often led me to generalize, stereotype and label others from a distance rather than examining the source of my biases, most of which were carry overs from unhealed wounds - living by circumstances led to some unfounded and unchecked habits that were not conducive to living fully. As a believer, I do not see Y'shua as crazy, but passionate about connecting people to a spiritual power that is potent in saving us from mistreating one another.

BTW, I would be interested in knowing what you, as a former believer, thought the good news was supposed to be - what did that look like.

Okay, that's all for now.

MMM

Anonymous said...

"but I used to navigate life the way I would approach scripture - from a distance and at face value"

With all due respect, MMM, how does imagining things about people help you get to know them better or to live a better life?

There is not even a remote connection between those concepts!

Anonymous said...

Lorena,
Your comment wasn't directed toward me, but I think this is a good example of the beauty of imagination. One doesn't have to abandon reason in order to know that imagination is a neccessary part of human relationships. We all do it naturally.

"Love is a canvas furnished by Nature and embroidered by imagination."
~Voltaire

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Lorena questioned: "With all due respect, MMM, how does imagining things about people help you get to know them better or to live a better life?"

Lorena, I like what Jennifer wrote in response to your query - that was a beautiful quote she included.

I would like to add, also, that by faith, I believe in a promise - a promise of gracious love - love sans any ulterior motive. Think about that for a moment - no malicious, exploitive or consumeristic intent - wow - if Y'shua, a purveyor of pure gracious love, is deemed "insane" then count me as one deluded as well. I can't see Him until I believe Him - He doesn't come to condemn. I think that I didn't believe because that "non-condemnation" clause offended my desire for justice and heads to roll when I was hurt by someone.

At any rate, Lorena, good talking to you - thanks for sharing your perspectives with me. MMM

Anonymous said...

Jeniffer,

As beautiful as the quotation can be, I don't know how it applies to Christianity.

Are you saying that we should be free to read whatever we want into the Bible passages because it is beautiful to imagine things?

Excuse me, but I fail to see the connection. I see that you are a pagan. Do you base your belief system on the Bible? I bet you don't.

MMM said, "I believe in a promise - a promise of gracious love - love sans any ulterior motive."

My point still stands. You imagined it all. You've made the Bible and God in your image. While it seems to work for you. I will pass, thank you. I like to keep a foot in reality as much as I can.

Anonymous said...

Lorena,

Are you saying that we should be free to read whatever we want into the Bible passages because it is beautiful to imagine things?

No, I'm not saying that. I was responding to your question about imagination and relationships. Don't we all dream a little using our imagination to enhance life? I imagined a lot about my husband before we got married...if I'd known the whole package I don't think I'd have been married to anyone! I'm sure he would say the same thing and we have a good relationship. Imagination has to be checked, but allegories and parables are legitimate mediums for explaining truths and they are based on imagination.

Are you saying we should cease to use our imaginitive ability?

About being pagan and basing my belief system on the Bible...
I'm not sure what tipped you to thinking I'm a pagan?? I'm not.
I didn't start out basing my belief system on the teaching of the Bible, but in my opinion there is no other compilation of writings that so completely exposes the condition of man or reveals God more fully. I base my belief system on what I can physically experience and have faith that the Bible best explains what I cannot see with my eyes, but know is there.

Steven Bently said...

Was Jesus insane?

For his time period he was probably considered pretty smart.

Since he and the people of that time thought that diseases were cause by demons and evil and wickedness.

They also thought that the heart was the center of all thought and emotion, notice the word (brain) in not anywhere in the bible.

They also thought that the world was flat and a person could live in the belly of a whale for three days and nights.

They thought that a god lived in the clouds above.

They thought that they could pray and talk to this god.

They also thought that a god required sacrifices for sins.

They also thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved over the earth.

They also believed in a talking donkey, talking snake, and a talking bush.

They believed the study of science was of the devil.

They believed in angels, holy spirits, ghosts, holy ghosts, demons, devils, evil spirits, witches, blessings, miracles, virgin birth, being raised from the dead.

Had Jesus been alive today, yes he would be considered totally insane.

Some people never change.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"No, I'm not saying that. I was responding to your question about imagination and relationships."

OH, I agree that we shouldn't dish imagination. Heavens! Without imagination we wouldn't have poetry or fiction writing. AS LONG AS WE KNOW IT IS FICTION or imagination.

What I am against is reading a book, like the Bible, and leading my life by it basing it on things I imagine it says.

You are confirming my point that bring "relationships" into the issue of Biblical interpretation is completely off-topic.

I got the idea that you were pagan from the Celtic link on your blog.
Sorry if I offended you.

I like the way you view the Bible. It, obviously, works well for you. That wouldn't work for me though. I have read many other books that better portray the human drama. I do respect your beliefs, though. To each her own.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Lorena, I think your comments exemplify your use of "imagination" to project all manner of ill fitting perspectives upon me. You can maintain and justify that approach if you wish - it seems to be working for you.

The best to you, MMM

Anonymous said...

Lorena,
Thank you for being sensitive to an offense, there is none taken. The Celtic Connection is a show about Ireland and they were highlighting Lunasa, an Irish folk band I like very much. And for some reason the link says it is no longer available now?? :/

Anyway, I do see your point about imagination. Sometimes it's just better to say, "I don't know".