JESUS WAS INSANE

Even those who deny that Jesus
existed – and I am one of them – must agree that whether the gospels are true
or not they don’t give us any confidence in the sanity of Jesus Christ. Even if Jesus didn’t exist the gospels could
have been based on stories about eccentrics and fairly obscure prophets of the
time who did exist.

 

If we can prove that the Jesus
Christ in them was mad then that is all we need to destroy Christianity. It would mean that the apostles he chose and
the Church he founded were all very silly people indeed. It would mean that we have to be on guard
against any other religious movement because if Christianity was founded on the
ravings of a madman and was such a success any other religion could have been
the same.

 

We can be sure that there is
no evidence for Jesus’ sanity and plenty of evidence against it.

 

You will see plenty of
Christian books written in defence of the faith that deny that Jesus was mentally
ill and claim that he was the sanest person that ever lived.

 

It is possible that Jesus was
a manic-depressive. He said he was the
light of the world (John 9:5) and the only way to God (John 14:6) and the
unique Son of God (John 17). That is the
sign of severe mania. He was unnaturally
full of himself. The Church says he was
not being mad for it was the truth. But
that presupposes that Jesus was telling the truth. The information we have got on him is
selective so we cannot be sure of that. The declarations of Jesus
about the whole generation of his time being evil and sinful and nobody being
good is
indicative of the depression that follows the euphoria in manic
depression. Nobody can say Jesus was
telling the truth then about all people being evil and sinful for that is
nonsense. There is a lack of any real
wisdom in what Jesus said. We must also
remember that he had to get his teaching right some of the time because it was
stolen from other people anyway. Plus he
just gives the teaching and gives no convincing reasons why we should listen to
him which does not count for wisdom.
This makes any argument from his wisdom to be a waste of breath.

 

Jesus knew of the Old
Testament law of God which said that a prophet who makes any error in what he
says he was told by God proves that he is a fake even if everything else he
says is miraculously right (Deuteronomy 18).
Jesus knew the standard set by God.
Yet he made claims for himself beyond anything any Old Testament prophet
claimed and could make no fulfilled prophecy that was clearly fulfilled before
the event. By his own standard, there
was something wrong with him or he was evil.

 

Jesus used to hide away a lot
for long periods and it was allegedly to pray and he could have been severely
depressed during these times. Perhaps it
was to get away from the people a while for some peace and to prepare for his
mission to them again? But he went into
the desert for ages to starve himself and he even thought he saw the Devil
there!

 

Jesus going forward to the
cross when there were easier deaths shows that he was mad and suicidal and
extremely masochistic. The Christians
say he was not mad for he had to die for the sins of the world. Again this is assuming he was telling the
truth and was right without evidence because if anybody else made the same
claim as Jesus they would dismiss them as insane.

 

Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ interviewed a
psychologist, a Christian one of course, who claimed that Jesus was so sane he
was amazing. The psychologist was Gary R. Collins Ph.D. The book admitted that many people seem to be
paragons of sanity and are really quite crazy (page 145) and gave the example
of a mentally-ill woman who had killed her husband. Appearing normal and looking normal and acting
normal until her trial was in progress, she began to say the craziest
things. Evidently the trial brought that
out in her. Otherwise she would have
been fine. Some forms of insanity can
lead to a person keeping the crazy beliefs and delusions to themselves. Insanity can make one do that more easily
than it can get one to lift a knife to kill with. It was entirely possible that even the
apostles never knew, at least for sure, Jesus was insane and Jesus took his
secret with him to the grave. The psychologist
claimed that Jesus was saner than himself.
As we will soon see he was not wrong about that!

 

We are told that since Jesus
did not dress strangely, cried at the tomb of Lazarus his friend, was angry with justification,  had friendships with a varied spectrum of people, didn’t have
an over-inflated ego, cared deeply for people but was not neurotically addicted
to being compassionate and was able to accept people but not their sin he
passed all the tests for perfect sanity with flying colours. His emotions were as normal as could be. Nonsense.

 

We are not told how Jesus
dressed or anything about how he looked at all.  How could Collins know he had a
normal appearance? His living rough and
making bizarre demands would so that he was an unusual person and how he
dressed was not important. What was
important was how he behaved. And his
behaviour was undoubtedly eccentric. The
gospels saying that Jesus had no privacy even when he wanted it suggests he, in
fact, was dressing strangely. People
were able to recognise him very easily.
Considering the voluminous and drab clothes that were worn by everybody
in those days, it should have been easy to become unrecognisable. Jesus was so recognisable that he must have
looked a strange character! And dressing
in a bizarre fashion and then seeking anonymity is a sure sign of
insanity.

Collins, the gospel of John
which speaks of Jesus crying at the tomb does not say why he cried. When he planned to raise Lazarus up his
crying for Lazarus would indicate that he had mental difficulties. Insane people do cry at funerals.

 

Jesus said that a man who
looks at a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his mind and therefore
sins (Matthew 5:28). He didn’t say
married woman. He meant that looking at
any woman with desire was a sin of adultery.
What he meant was, if you allow yourself to
desire to use a woman for sex, naturally you cannot care if she is married or
not so you are no better than an adulterer.
The Churches following his teaching hold that having wilful sexual desires
or sexual fantasies about someone you are not married to is
a sin.

 

This bans talking about sex
for talking about it means you will be having pictures of it in your
unconscious if not your conscious. There
is no such thing as talking about sex and not thinking about it. You may not even be aware of it. This clearly indicates that if Jesus lived
then he was mad for the consequences of not mentioning sex are horrendous as we
know from the huge numbers of children raped and molested by religious and
clergy and how not talking about it kept this going on for centuries.

Jesus went into an insane rage
in the Temple
and endangered his own life and that of other people and his friends for it
drove him to cause a riot. And we are
told by Collins to think that this was justified anger! Jesus went berserk for the workers in the Temple were making money
out of religion and acting dishonestly.
He knew about it before for he was in the Temple often enough. So why snap then?

 

The Sermon on the Mount was
spoken to simple people therefore there is no room for denying that Jesus meant
what he said literally. In this sermon,
Jesus forbade sexual desire, forbade standing up for yourself and your property
and commanded helping your enemy though this was helping them to oppress
you. If that is not mental impairment
what is? Fancy interpretations are
brought up to avoid the implications of Jesus’ teaching. It is a whitewashing job for we must obey the
rule that the simplest and plainest interpretation is the correct one.

 

Albert Schweitzer held that
Jesus was insane. His Jesus believed
that the kingdom of God, the overthrow of all the nations and the replacement
with God’s kingdom, was about to happen any day and when he was on the cross he
cried that God had forsaken him for he was dying and none of what he had
predicted had taken place.  His Jesus gave insane teachings believing
that it was foolish to bother trying to stop somebody thieving for the world was
about to end.

 

Jesus’ anger against the
Pharisees and the scribes in Matthew 23 was definitely over the top. Nothing in the gospels indicates that he only
meant the bad Pharisees. No differentiation
exists in the gospels. And as for Joseph
of Arimathea though he is said to have been a member of the Pharisees and a
secret disciple of Jesus it is not said he was a good disciple. Back to you Jesus. Why get mad at people who are only going to
get more stubborn the more you rant at them?
Jesus said after his alleged resurrection that those who believed and
were baptised would be saved while those who would not believe would be
condemned. Some disliking the view that
Jesus would send you to Hell just for your opinions maintain that he meant
belief in the sense that if you really believe in love you will love. But you can believe in love and not love and
there is no need or justification for that interpretation. Jesus can mean belief and had plenty of words
in his vocabulary if he needed them but he said belief so he means belief. This is evidence of anger without
justification too.

 

Jesus didn’t say we are to
respect our neighbour as ourselves but to love our neighbour as ourselves
meaning we must adore our neighbour as much as ourselves.  Respect our neighbour
as ourselves means we can treat a person properly despite having bad feelings
for them.  The Christians say that Jesus in commanding such love of neighbour
did not mean that we must be crazy about everybody but only that we must treat
them as we wish to be treated.  They lie for he said love not respect.  By
asking us to do the impossible and by threatening curses and Hell and eternal
torment on those who naturally fail, Jesus was putting us on an eternal
treadmill from which there would be no reprieve.  We would be unable to think we
can do anything right or to please him.  And once we start thinking that about
ourselves our relationships will rapidly break down.  Jesus tries to force us to
be good in an impossible way.  His example will drive us to force our gospels
and versions of them on others.  And if we can’t do it, that will not stop us
wanting to do it.

Jesus’ foundational attitude
towards the people around him were that they were either for him or against him
(Matthew 12:30). He said that whoever
was not for him was against him as if there could be no undecided
category. He said that often
enough. Such an uncompromising hostile
and divisive stance smacks of fanaticism and megalomania. It shows he could only have attracted people
who were not right in the head or who preferred fantasy to fact. And especially when the gospels say the Jews
sought to kill him for blasphemy and persecute him meaning the followers were
in danger too!

 

Jesus said many irrational things
such as that God saying he was the God of the deceased Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
meant that God was God of the living not the dead so that the dead were still
alive. There was no reason to take such
a bizarre interpretation of what God said.
God said it in the Law of Moses, in the Book of Exodus, and the Law
never gives any hint of an afterlife. It
promises only material blessings for obeying God.

 

We are not told that the
people he associated with were really close friends. Everybody has friends even when they are
crazy. He did not accept everybody. He told a woman that she and her suffering
daughter were dogs (Matthew 15:26) and to confirm it he only helped he after
she admitted it.

 

The claim that Jesus was not
ego-bloated is untrue. But the book
would answer that Jesus made great claims about himself just because they were
true and he backed them up with evidence.
The Case for Christ maintains that Jesus gave unique teachings,
worked miracles over nature and did healings to prove that he was who he said
he was. But the trouble with miracles is
that all believers are selective in what miracles they will believe in. For example, the Protestant regards the
miracles unique to Catholics as psychic fraud, trickery or the Devil’s work as
he schemes to keep people away from the truth and get people damned in Hell
with himself and his angels. The
Catholic Church only recognises miracles as from God if they fit its theology
and if they don’t the Church ignores them.
So this is doctoring the evidence.
Also the gospel miracles are not as well backed up as modern miracles
are. And miracles are so extraordinary
that one can be forgiven for not believing in them unless one sees them – an
attitude the apostle Thomas had. The
bigger and stranger the claim the more evidence is needed. Jesus’ miracles would be no help for we
cannot have commonsense and believe in them.

 

It is absolutely certain that
if Jesus claimed to be God or to be the greatest prophet ever that he was
insane. Why? Because he left no reason for us to believe
in his claims. The Christians argue that
he couldn’t have been insane for he backed up his claims with miracles. But Jesus himself claimed that the resurrection
was the only real sign. The Jews asked
him for a sign and he said he would give them none but the sign of Jonah (Luke
11:29,30). Some scholars think this sign
was the resurrection or just the message of repentance. Jonah seems to have risen from the dead after
being swallowed by a fish and he preached repentance. But the context demands we take sign to mean
miracle. So it was the
resurrection. Mark says there will be no
sign full stop (Mark 8:12). This means
that no evidence will be given for his resurrection and it must be believed by
faith alone. Christians say Mark was
referring to the same talk as in Luke and just summarised it so there is no
contradiction. There is. The words do not agree.

 

Another problem is that the
crucifixion could have been a hoax.
Another man could have taken Jesus’ place on the cross which would rule
out the resurrection being a sign. The
gospellers may say that Jesus died on the cross but that was only their
interpretation of events. They could
have been honest but wrong. Christian
faith is not based on the resurrection but on what men said. It is based on reports about something not
the something itself. Irrationally, the
men are considered to be right just because they made an interpretation for which
there is no evidence for.

 

For the resurrection to
succeed as a proof it needs to be something that only an honest God could
do. It is also curious that the
resurrection was not a resuscitation but a return from death that transmuted
Jesus into a totally transformed mode of existence meaning Jesus had to reveal
it in visions. The resurrection failed
to be proof for the proof he offered that the Devil and magicians couldn’t
duplicate was visions!

 

It is no less equally certain
that if Jesus did not claim to be God but to be the greatest man ever or the
supreme messenger of God he was still insane.
Strobel’s book tells us that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the
greatest man ever meaning he thought he himself was better than John for in
other places he claimed to be superior to John.
Jesus should have said nothing and let others decide. After all, if God was with him God could
influence them to see that so that Jesus wouldn’t need to say it. His saying it was therefore boasting.

  

Jesus was suffering from
neurotic compassion at times. We shall
see this from the following example.

 

Jesus Christ condemned wealth as sinful full stop. A rich young man came to Jesus and he told
Jesus he kept all the commandments.
Jesus said that there was one thing he lacked. What he lacked was his not giving away all
his wealth to the poor. The Church says
that Jesus was only recommending that the rich man become perfect by giving up
his wealth. He was not commanding him to
do it. The young man went away sad and
Jesus said that it was hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God
and it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle. He said then that only with God could
salvation be possible for a rich man. Regarding this the Church says he only
means it is hard for a rich man not impossible.
But he said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God. The way he says it is so difficult and only
God can save the rich man suggests that the rich man must part with his wealth
to be able to enter the kingdom and only God can give him the strength to do
that. Also, if he was only making a
suggestion to the rich man why didn’t he call him back and explain that? He let him go away indicating that he didn’t
want this man to serve God with him for he wouldn’t give up the wealth.

 

Collins admits that the
opponents of Jesus felt that he was raving mad but says they were not
professionals and so they had no competence in judging Jesus’ sanity. He quotes John 10:20 for support saying that
the people were accusing Jesus of being mad because he claimed to be the good
shepherd. The critics of Jesus are being
said to have proved themselves to be too silly to rely on because they accused
Jesus of being mad just because he said he was the good shepherd. This would be tantamount to saying Johnie was
mad for claiming to be a good mechanic.
Collins is totally unfair and it is terrible that the ancestors of the
Jews have to be insulted to save Jesus.
That is insulting the Jews of today.
Why is he unfair? For Jesus was
not condemned because of his use of the good shepherd title at all. He was condemned because in John 10:19 he
said he would die and rise again. He was
making outrageous claims for himself.
Jesus himself said that miracles proved nothing (Matthew 7:22) and yet
he expected the Jews to believe he would die and rise again. Surely he would concede that if he could say
such things anybody could?

 

The Jewish rabbis and leaders
considered Jesus to be insane and we must remember that they were the
counsellors and psychologists of their day.
You don’t need to be a professional to judge
somebody insane and nobody can deny that we don’t have the right to accuse
these people of not intelligently and honestly believing that Jesus was
crackers. People with a good talent for
rational thinking and rational habits have as much right as psychiatrists to
judge somebody insane for insanity is in essence simply a failure to see or
like reality. So people who knew Jesus
and said he was mad are not to be listened to and Collins comes along twenty
centuries later reading a few books on Jesus has the right to say they were
wrong! Maybe they were but what right
has he to demand authority and knowledge of Jesus’ mind? Jesus own family
believed that he was mad (Mark 3:21) and they could hardly be accused of being
unfair to him for they were deeply ashamed of him which proves they really
sincerely believed he was mad. Also they
were so sure, they even brought scorn and stigma on themselves by admitting
they believed Jesus was mad to everyone.
They didn’t care for they were so sure.

The
Jews when they accused Jesus of being mad often meant he was demon possessed
(John 10:20). They were not saying he
was a madman foaming at the mouth. Jesus
was not that kind of madman. They were
saying he was very eccentric. Perhaps he
seemed normal most of the time. That
would make them feel he was possessed for nobody can see a demon and not all
possessions are necessarily gruesome and tormenting. Satan might possess a man to use him to lead
people away from the truth and ruin God’s plan.

Collins
declares Jesus sane just on the basis of four short books three of which used
largely the same material and repeated what each others said when you need more
than that. Collins needs help.

 

Collins says in the book that
there are some psychiatric patients who won’t respond to treatment and blames
demons for that. This was said to get
around the fact that nobody reasonable believes in possession these days and
yet Jesus performed tons of exorcisms of demons. But not getting better only means that
medicine is imperfect not that demons are involved. To tell mentally ill people that they even
might be possessed is downright criminal and cruel. You would be more terrified of evil
supernatural forces than you would be of natural ones for the former have more
freedom to do the evil they want. There
is no doubt that Jesus was guilty of great insensitivity and self-absorption
when he advanced the view that demons can take over and harm people. Collins needs to see that he himself is
guilty of this too.

 

Collins ignores the evidence
of paranoia in Jesus when Jesus said that the vast majority of people are
demon-possessed. Jesus told the Jews
that if Satan cast out Satan that his empire would collapse (Mark 3:24). Clearly then Satan couldn’t work without
possessing as many people as possible at least to some degree. Logically, most possessed people must just
act normal with nobody knowing the evil forces that are controlling them or
influencing them. Why couldn’t Satan put
a demon out and send it to somebody else when it suited him? That Jesus rejects the suggestion while
believing that the Devil was extremely powerful in the world indicates that
there was nobody else to possess! So
everybody in the world must be possessed.
He wasn’t sure of his own mental health when he had to believe that
everybody was possessed. He stated in
Matthew 12 that a demon can be exorcised and come back to take over the victim
with seven others when it finds nobody else to possess though the victim will
have got his life together and be a good person. When it can happen to a healthy and decent
person who came through a demonic attack far stronger there isn’t much hope for
the rest of us! And especially when the
demon that did the tormenting before comes back with seven friends! It is obviously better to put up with a demon
than to try and get rid of it. He said
that these visitations from demons would happen to the generation he was a part
of which he described as an “evil generation”.
He also stated that nobody was good or to be called good but God alone
(Mark 10:18) and indicated that he trusted nobody at all for he said that
people who go wrong in small things should not be trusted in greater (Luke
16:10). All this is a classic sign of
severe mental illness.

 

The fact that Jesus set his
feet on the way to the cross instead of hiding from the people who would put
him there, is evidence of suicidal tendencies.
The gospels make it plain that he refused to take any measures for his
own safety at that time. Jesus predicted
his death by violence and he didn’t need
to be a prophet to see it coming. The
gospels say he knew that he was going to be arrested and put to death and said
so hours before it happened. Today we
take it for granted that religious beliefs are no excuse for committing
suicide, for risking your own life or that of others and rightly so. Yet the crucifix is reverenced and so is
Jesus though they represent the right to walk into death if you believe that
God commands it. This is evil at worst
and insanity at best. No decent God
would make such demands, he has to understand that people are convinced of many
things that are wrong for many different reasons. When Jesus didn’t hide during his arrest he
was saying, “I believe that God wants me to die on a cross.” In other words, he was dying for his beliefs
rather than for God. It was totally
selfish and crazy.

 

Jesus was deliberately
provocative during his trial. The high
priest asked him what his teaching was and Jesus sarcastically replied that he
should go and ask his hearers (John 18).
The high priest was asking Jesus and it was a trial and Jesus knew he
couldn’t go and ask people. The rest of
the time he refused to answer and defend himself. He acted like he actually wanted to be
crucified. If Jesus had sex the Church
would be outraged and in denial. But
when Jesus refused to try and defend himself even if it was hopeless it’s a
virtue!

 

Despite the fact that his
disciples were living in a turbulent country and needed money to make a new
life somewhere else if war broke out Jesus demanded that they surrender all
their possessions. He said in Luke 14
that no king going to war sends his men out without making sure that they can
stand up to the enemy so in the same way nobody can be his disciple without
giving up all his possessions. In other
words, you have to go to war against what is around you to follow Christ. It is a spiritual war. Note the violent imagery: it shows that the battle is going to be just
as tough as real war. You have to give
up your possessions to prepare for the war so that you might win it. There can be no doubt that he is not just
referring to detachment from possessions here, having them but them not meaning
much or anything to you. He is saying
they must physically be abandoned to prepare for the battle. Detachment is what you are fighting for, it’s
the goal of the war so that you will be attached only to Jesus. You must painfully and agonisingly part with
everything so that you have a chance of really being detached for giving up
possessions does not mean you don’t love them any more. You give them up so that you can stop loving
them. That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is also saying that nearly the whole of
Christianity is a fake for they ignore his directions. He said that nobody is a disciple of his
unless he gives up everything. Jesus
said that he who was not for him was against him and you need to be a disciple
of his to enter the kingdom
of Heaven. Obviously then there is no salvation for
anybody who does not abandon all he has.
Jesus did ask his disciples to do that – they were called just to drop
everything and follow him. He told
Matthew just to leave his job and follow him for example. So all must be forsaken for Jesus
Christ. A wife can be more dangerous
than material things for all materialists are unhappy and it is easier to
prefer your wife to Jesus than your money so by implication Jesus is advocating
celibacy as well. This kind of morality
indicates an extreme fanaticism in Jesus, his followers and his fans. Like many fanatics they might have been able
to hide it well just like somebody acting normally doesn’t mean they are sane.

 

That people listen to Luke
being read in Church and then take religious leaders seriously is astonishing
for it makes it plain that the leaders only pick and choose what they like out
of Jesus’ teaching and then claim to be his honest representatives! The Christian theologian FF Bruce defends the
doctrine that Jesus forbade us to keep anything and wanted us to part with all
and give it to the poor in chapter 46 Sell what you have Hard Sayings, FF
Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1983.

 

Assertiveness means you stand
up for your own rights without violating another person’s rights and expressing
your needs and desires and opinions in an honest and plain way. In Christianity, the only rights you have is
to be abandoned by God and sentenced to death by God and sent to Hell forever
when you die. Jesus said that when you
were struck on one cheek turn the other.
So you are not allowed to feel any aggression. To be assertive is a sin as well for he
didn’t say, “If anybody hits you on one cheek and you can’t get away, turn the
other cheek. Don’t say like an assertive
person would that you are going to report them to the law if they hit you
again.” He would have seen assertiveness
as sinfully affirming rights you don’t have and therefore as a form of
aggression.

 

There is no doubt that Jesus
would lose all his fans if they could see that the choice he left them was
between aggression and letting people walk all over you. He would want you to take the latter course
for he said to turn the other cheek. To
let people walk over you is worse than aggression so Jesus gave such bad advice
it might be evidence for insanity.

 

Jesus attracted people who as
far as rationality was concerned had problems.
Most people are weak at rationality especially when it comes to
religious claims they want to believe in and so they would devote themselves to
lunatics who seem relatively sane. Jesus
failed to attract people of great intellectual calibre, though he brought in
some who thought they had, which often happens when lunatics run a sect.

 

We read in Patricia Cornwell’s
Portrait of a Killer that the psychopath has an abnormal desire to be admired
(page 273). Each psychopath is
unique. He might strictly avoid certain
antisocial actions such as stealing or fighting and be a rapist (page 27). There could be any combination of good and
bad behaviour. Jesus could have been the
epitome of morality with the psychopathic disorder emerging in the form of him
claiming to be God or the Son of God or the Saviour. The moral image would have been necessary to
evoke trust in him so that he could indulge his behavioural disorder. Like all psychopaths, he would have been
incredibly cunning and would have faked love and compassion (page 29). The arrogance of those who say he is sinless
is compounded by the fact that only Jesus could know if he really was or
not. To believe in Jesus you have to
oppose the correctness of modern insights into mental illness. I always believed that Christianity was
anti-progress in its essence.

 

The same book argues that the
Ripper was an artist. And not just any
artist but Walter Sickert whose art is so violent that it is clear that he was
a psychopath. Theology is a form of
art. The Christian canvas has false
charm all over it like the paintings.
The violence is there and cries out for the destruction and eternal
torment of sinners and loathes babies who are not baptised and has a violent
Bible and a blood-drinking God. I could
go on for ages. The Christian faith has
the hallmarks of being created by psychopaths and if Jesus originated its theology
then he was the biggest psychopath of the lot.
It is futile for Christians to say that they do not want to believe in
these vile tenets but that they have to for they are true for if they wanted
rid of their faith they would be able to get rid of it and if and thought
enough they would not have to believe.
The evidence for the divine origin of the claims of Christ is so flimsy
that there is no denying that anybody who believes in Christianity wants to
believe. They may have been conditioned
but they still want to do it.

 

Jesus taught that we must love
the Lord our God with all our power and strength and that this was the greatest
commandment and that loving others and ourselves was secondary (Mark 12:30,
31). Let’s translate Jesus here: Belief
in God, trust in the authority of religion comes before the welfare of yourself
and your loved ones and even a helpless child.
It is really the theories and laws of religious leaders such as Jesus
that are being put first. If religious
authority is that binding who can complain when it commands evil having dressed
it up as good? Religion is a delusion
based on the failure or refusal to admit that to serve any god is to serve what
man has made. Nobody denies that most
religion is based on delusion so why can’t they admit that their own is no
better?

 

The concept of God itself
betrays the psychopathic mentality of those who embrace it. It signifies a disguised hatred of humanity
for God is given the right to take all from us including our lives meaning that
God alone matters and if others are to be helped it is for the sake of obeying
him and not for their good. God being
God does not need our devotion and it is totally frenzied madness to approve of
a being that kills and makes flesh-eating bugs for it is those who have needs
that come first. When Jesus claimed to
be the Son of God he confessed that he was a psychopath.

 

People joke that somebody is
touched in the head or mad but nobody jokes that somebody has cancer. There are many nasty names for people with
mental problems. Nutter, nutjob, looney
sicko, and so on. There are no
derogatory terms for people with physical illnesses. Why the antagonism towards people with mental
illness? People say it is because they
fear what a person with mental illness might do. But we know that mental illness relatively
rarely causes its victims to do harm. Others
say it is because people fear mental illness for they have no idea of what it
is like. They do not fear physically
sick people because they have a little idea of what they are going through. But this is hard to accept because people do
get depressed and think they are going mad.
It’s a universal thing. We do
have some idea of what it is like.
Religion, especially Christianity, has traditionally loathed mentally
ill people. It has suggested they may be
demonically possessed. And when they are
not they were suspected of being demonically obsessed. That means that demons are not possessing
them but meddling with their minds and causing their illness or they are just
taking advantage of an existing disorder.
The fear of demons was then projected onto the victims of mental
illness. The victims were seen as pawns
of evil. Accordingly they were feared
and inevitably hated. The belief in
demons has waned but centuries of hatred for the mentally ill has still left
its mark. As long as the Church promotes
the gospels it automatically seeks to revive that hatred. People still fear demons even though they
don’t deeply believe in them and the fear of demons still produces prejudice
against people with mental illness.

 

The Church cannot rule out demonic
obsession in any case of mental illness.
Clearly out of respect for the victims of mental illness, the concept of
demons and Jesus the exorcist need to go. This evil faith of Christendom
teaches that the sin of Judas and the Pharisees Jesus said were destined for
Hell for their sin was unforgivable was the sin of despair. That is a helpful doctrine for depressed
people I must say! It is bad enough to
suggest to people with psychotic tendencies that demons exist and can afflict
people but that shows that psychiatry should oppose religion. Despair is listed as a sin against the Holy
Spirit in the Catholic Catechism of Christian Doctrine.

 

The Christian system was
designed to produce psychopaths and neurotics. Gaze
at its
bloody history.  It has been very successful.

 

The gospels indeed have failed
to convince us that Jesus was sane.

 

Friday,
11 January 2008

 

THE
CASE FOR CHRIST, Lee Strobel, HarperCollins/Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1998

PORTRAIT OF A KILLER, Patricia
Cornwell, Little Brown, London,
2002

 

 

 

Top of the
Document