Posts by Jeremy Alvarez5

feralhound55 said:It could be—just as it might not be essential for healing. I'm sure there are atheists out there who have managed mental health struggles their own way. Religion can certainly help if you find solace in it, but it isn't a requirement.

On the flip side, extreme religious fervor can definitely trigger psychological issues—there are plenty of ways that happens. Personally, I think anything accepted blindly, without any doubt or common sense, is harmful. And honestly, people prone to that kind of blind faith are often showing signs of instability right from the start.

There’s no way to measure "religiosity," so finding data that links specific faiths to certain illness rates seems pretty unreliable to me. You could attend Mass every single day and stay perfectly sane, or you could take one trip to India and come back completely unhinged. Everyone has their own limits.

I'd also point to things like "killing for God" or historical inquisitions—does being a criminal automatically make someone mentally ill?

So, what about the fact that this whole religious "reprogramming" starts at such an incredibly young age...

Alright, here we go. This thread is basically about the intersection of mental illness and religion—so half psychology, half theology. I guess I wonder if any actual scientists have ever dared to dig into whether specific types of mental disorders correlate with specific religions. Like, has anyone actually published data showing that a certain percentage of people with a particular condition belong to a certain faith?

It seems pretty clear that religion can be a really effective tool when helping people recover from addiction. You see it in those communities where they combine intense physical labor with prayer and deep religious conviction...

I’m honestly fascinated by this whole topic. I’d be super grateful for any thoughts you guys have, or even just some links or book recommendations if you know of anything good out there.

So, looking at Carl Gustav Jung, born in 1875, who went to boarding school in San Francisco, studied medicine, worked at a psychiatric hospital, taught at a university, and ran his own private practice. He had that whole complicated relationship with Sigmund Freud 🙂, developed his theories on personality, traveled around studying the traditions, history, and rituals of various tribes across Africa, the Americas, and India. He wrote about twenty books, including "Answer to job" [referring to the biblical figure, not a career job], and passed away in 1961. Interestingly, once he hit his 80s, he started working with a biographer who mentioned in her preface that he truly believed religious conviction plays a vital role in treating mental illness.

That leads me to my big question: if faith is so crucial for healing, could it also be a deciding factor in how these conditions develop in the first place?

Three, two, one... let's hear it!

PS

Since Jeremy Alvarez5 managed to kick off that discussion on suicide over in the philosophy section, which naturally flowed into spirituality and psychology, I was thinking it would be cool if this thread eventually made its way over there too. Ideally, I'd love to see this become a sort of grand tour through philosophy, religion, and spirituality—maybe even ending up in the history section down the road. Personally, I jump between all those subforums, but since some of the most interesting people I talk to here only tend to post where they feel most comfortable 🙂, maybe the mods could encourage them more? Maybe give them more space to speak up, share photos, or even memes and debates 😢. That way, I won't have to feel like a nuisance by reposting the same topic across every single board under different titles and trying to twist things to suit my own agenda, which—if I'm being honest—is something I tend to do. 🙂 Cheers to the hardworking moderators. 🙏 😍

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

What exactly do you and he mean when you talk about "controlling"? I guess I’m wondering what that process actually looks like in practice—is it a specific action, or more of a continuous thing? And how does it actually differ from just observing? Maybe there's a fine line there that I'm missing.

Rebecca Scott3 said:... man, Jesus... it’s such a sharp, well-told story about a hero who tried to shift the world through nothing but peaceful resistance... he really stands in for all those overlooked, everyday people... the ones who get sidelined, stepped on, betrayed, and ultimately taken out by the very systems they tried to change without ever lifting a finger in violence...
he turns into a revolutionary once he truly sees the truth... but for that kind of revolution to actually work, it has to be deeply personal... otherwise, it’s just another hollow deception...
....it’s about channeling love for others through your own soul... and by loving yourself and humanity through everyone you meet... that's the ultimate realization that shatters every weapon of violence... that's where you finally encounter God's truth...

So, someone is pitching nonviolence as a way to get things done, and I suppose that makes them likable, since most people naturally recoil from violence (mostly because it puts the people we care about at risk), but that doesn't necessarily mean their program is the best one just because they use methods like "loving" both friends and enemies. In my opinion, the means don't justify the ends here either.

To me, staying away from violence, loving everyone, and knowing how to separate hating a certain behavior from hating the person doing it... well, that doesn't feel like realizing God to me. It feels more like acting in one's own interest—trying to build harmony and smooth coexistence. And honestly, you can do that regardless of religion. Sometimes, it even happens in spite of religious movements.

The idea of loving your enemy, or even useful thoughts like saying "enough is enough" regarding someone's suffering, are basically the wisdoms that helped elevate and sustain Jesus and various forms of Christianity. But, hey, there's always a catch. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, I don't really think the story of Jesus is "well-polished" in that way. It seems pretty human to me, flaws and all.

dustyskipper3 said:It might seem strange by today's standards, I guess, but back then, the entire Jewish community was deeply convinced that a Messiah would eventually arrive. They even had this ritual where they would essentially "load" a lamb with their sins before sacrificing it, which served as a symbolic way to cleanse themselves. Even now, Jewish people maintain that hope for a coming Messiah, whereas Christians believe he has already arrived. Personally, I feel like Jesus fit the description of the Messiah far too perfectly for it to be some kind of coincidence, though I suppose there were likely many others back then claiming to be him, whether out of pure madness or just seeking personal gain. You can still see similar things happening today—if you ever found yourself wandering through Jerusalem, you might encounter someone acting like a modern-day John the Baptist, roaming the desert in nothing but animal skins to preach. It’s often referred to as "Jerusalem Syndrome."

I mean, it’s not just some specific Jewish custom, right? Other folks living around the Fertile Crescent were doing similar stuff back in the day too. I can't quite remember if it was specifically the Assyrians, but I remember reading some deep dives about how they celebrated the New Year hundreds of years before Christ. Apparently, the whole celebration would drag on for over ten days. On the first day, they’d haul their idols out of the temples, and then for the next three days, they’d carry them around in these massive processions. They’d slaughter lambs or goats and smear the blood on the walls, then follow that up by burning incense. Some groups even used to toss animal sacrifices off cliffs and things like that. Honestly, it feels like the stories that kick off the Bible are really just different versions of much older Sumerian religious traditions. So, if you think about it, all of later religion is basically built on the mythology and literature of the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and all those other neighboring cultures. I guess it's all interconnected.

When you look at the history of the Jewish people, I guess it makes sense why things played out the way they did. They were living under this constant, heavy cloud of anxiety, always terrified that one of their neighbors was going to swoop in and conquer them. That kind of fear doesn't just vanish; it builds up over hundreds of years, and honestly, it probably shaped their entire political and religious landscape. It created this environment where you had all these prophets and intense characters—people similar to John the Baptist or Jesus—emerging from the chaos. It seems like whenever the nation hit a rough patch, they didn't see it as bad luck or politics; they viewed it as a collective punishment from God for not sticking strictly to their religious tenets. This mindset really fueled the rise of different sects, like the Essenes. You also saw these radical reactions popping up as people searched for extreme ways to prove their devotion—like those intense groups who would observe the Sabbath so strictly that they’d rather fall into a well than break a single rule. It was a pretty wild time, I imagine.

It’s kind of wild when you think about it—modern Jewish communities are still holding out for the arrival of the Messiah, whereas Christians are pretty much convinced He already showed up. I mean, if you look at how Jesus fits that whole Messianic profile, it feels like way too perfect to be just some massive coincidence, you know? Though, I guess back in the day, there were probably tons of people claiming to be the savior too, maybe just looking for a quick buck or maybe they were just genuinely losing their minds. It's a lot to wrap your head around.

I guess if you look at how some Jewish scholars analyze certain parts of the Bible, Jesus just didn't really fit the whole Messiah mold they were looking for, so they never quite embraced him as that. And when you look at his early followers, it’s funny because you don't see a bunch of high-ranking priests; it’s mostly just fishermen and regular folks. It feels like Christianity only really caught fire and got a unified direction once Paul stepped in. He’s the one writing all those letters, often clashing with the Jewish community and even those Jews who actually did accept Jesus' teachings. Since Paul never even saw Jesus in person, he was basically building his own theology from scratch—which, if you think about it, is kind of like how Popes and various rulers throughout history have just pushed their own interpretations whenever it suited them. Back then, there were dozens of different gospels floating around, but the main church organization eventually just picked four. And honestly, three out of those four feel like somewhat loose versions of stories passed down through hearsay decades, maybe even centuries, after Jesus was gone. The discrepancies between the gospels tell you everything you need to know about how messy things were; there was definitely a lot of shady maneuvering going on behind the scenes. It also makes me wonder how much of a connection John the Baptist actually had with him. Maybe that connection was just something cooked up later to win over people who belonged to the sect following John the Baptist? In those first few hundred years, there were hundreds of different sects popping up everywhere. You even had these mass suicides happening because people were so convinced this life didn't matter compared to the next. Eventually, this one centralized church organization starts to take shape, making alliances with Roman emperors and then using fire and swords in the centuries to follow to wipe out anyone who dared to disagree with the central committee's decisions.

---------

So, I was thinking about how nations tend to develop these massive power centers, right? It’s like they build up this huge central committee—kind of like how some big corporate headquarters or even certain political hubs in D.C. operate—and then they start leaning on authoritarian tactics to tighten their grip. They get backed by big banking capital, and then they always seem to find a way to recruit fresh blood from the ranks of people who are just... lost. Over the centuries, it feels like they use these really intense brainwashing methods to turn people into these walking zombies. These folks end up preaching to everyone else about loving their neighbor as themselves, but honestly, I guess these preachers love themselves so much they won't even admit they have any rights or flaws. It’s kind of wild. They collect all these sins for confession—whether that’s happening in someone's conscious mind or deep in their subconscious—because they’ve been trained to believe that very specific actions are "sins," while other things are considered "desirable behavior." People live their whole lives thinking they’re constantly sinning, even though they see themselves as these living leaders or role models. Then, they hope for forgiveness from God if they repent, and they somehow mistake that for actual love. And the worst part? They tell everyone else to love themselves in that same way; to do "good deeds" because they’re so convinced of their own personal insight into what is right and what is wrong. Then, you see them slowly turning on their neighbors, judging anyone who doesn't fit into their specific moral worldview. I mean, there are definitely some people out there who would gladly light bonfires or stone someone if they could, and they really show their teeth whenever the country they belong to gets a chance to go to war. I guess it reminds me of how Jesus supposedly flipped the tables of the money changers in the temple. It feels like He's really calling out anyone who is absolutely certain they have the right to destroy others—especially those who are convinced that God sent them to act that way, or those who are totally blinded by their own specific vision of a perfect utopia.

mistygardener59 said:If an individual genuinely believes they are the Son of God, possesses immortality, and expects to undergo reincarnation—all while maintaining that they can absorb the sins of others through crucifixion and that their personal suffering serves a greater good for all of humanity—what kind of clinical diagnosis would actually fit such a person?

I guess the answer would be to bring up "Jerusalem syndrome." I’d also probably add that saying "all of humanity" doesn't really hold up when you look at one specific detail. From one point of view, Mary's son was more about the idea that the sun shines on everyone equally—good people and bad alike—and he was really pushing for forgiveness and love toward... to those closest to usSo, yeah, he basically declared that to be the most important law. But if you look at Jewish law, a lot of the big-time scholars seem to think that when they talk about your "neighbor," they’re really just talking about other Jews—basically, people within their own faith. To them, outsiders were more like "dogs." I mean, even Jesus said something along those lines to that woman who came to him for help, specifically regarding her little sick puppy, right? If people actually embraced the Christian dimension and opened it up to the entire world, you'd see a pattern. Neither the Jewish nor the Christian concept is really about saving every single person on Earth. It’s more about preaching a specific kind of "good news," or emphasizing the need to follow certain laws. It's all about acting according to these specific guidelines so you can save yourself from hell, or rather, avoid falling out of God's favor eventually if you choose a different path. I guess that's just how it works.

So, moving on to the other part of what we were talking about—if you really dig into the core of Jesus' teachings and the whole foundation of American Christianity, there’s this constant theme of an ultimate showdown between good and evil. It’s all about that "separating the wheat from the chaff" vibe, right? Like, the idea that it’s a narrow path and only a few people actually find it. So, it isn't even about saving every single person on Earth; it's specifically for the "righteous"—those who follow the rules exactly how they're laid out. The whole thing kind of predicts this inevitable friction and division. I mean, there are lines about how He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword, and how families would basically be torn apart. It’s like everything gets categorized into good vs. bad, and then there’s this weird hierarchy based on merit, like some "greatest and least" ranking in heaven. Even back in the day, you see Jesus' first disciples asking who would be closest to Him, and later on, people are obsessing over who prayed more, did more good deeds, stayed longer in monasteries, or—well, I guess depending on how you look at it—who was willing to take the most extreme risks. It honestly feels like everyone was just trying to figure out whatever method gave them the best chance at winning the game, or maybe just whichever version of "devotion" felt like the least amount of brainwashing to them at the time. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems pretty much built into the structure.

So, I was just sitting here thinking about how you'd even frame a question like this if you wanted to get a real answer. Like, how do you properly phrase it? I mean, what kind of diagnosis would you even give someone who claims they’re going to save everyone who follows their lead—their specific teachings or their whole way of life—even if following them leads straight into misery or death? It's that whole idea where they promise a beautiful life in the hereafter, but only for those who stick to their exact path, while everyone else who doesn't fit that mold is basically doomed to perish because they aren't part of the "inner circle." I guess I'm just wondering how you'd actually put that into words without sounding totally lost.

If we go ahead and add up all those other elements they're asking for... I guess that changes things, doesn't it? Maybe. diagnosis I mean, it’s pretty straightforward if you think about it: the whole idea is that life goes on forever, and that someone—just anyone, really—sacrifices themselves for the greater good after their body gives out. It feels like this massive, almost megalomaniacal religious concept, centered entirely around being the Son of God. There isn't any other version of it, you know? No daughters, no other sons, no virgins... just that one specific path. I guess it’s just how the whole thing is built.

-----

If anyone else wants to dive deeper into this—it’s actually pretty interesting when you think about that idea of saving the "righteous sinners" (you know, people who aren't truly wicked, they just don't quite get how to live perfectly right) and what Jesus was actually getting at with that. I guess there's a lot to unpack there, maybe. Making money... man, where do you even start with that? I guess there isn't one single magic answer, right? It’s kind of all over the place depending on who you ask. Some folks swear by the old-school grind—just putting in those hours at a place like Starbucks or maybe a local firm in Chicago—while others are out here trying to figure out the whole side hustle thing. I mean, maybe it’s about investing, or maybe it's just finding that one thing you're actually good at and sticking with it. It feels like everyone has a different philosophy lately. One day it's crypto, the next it's real estate, then suddenly everyone's talking about remote freelance gigs. It's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly. I don't have it all figured out myself, but I feel like the goal is always the same: just finding a way to stay ahead of the curve without losing your mind in the process. Just food for thought, I suppose. Eternal life... I mean, does anyone actually have a clue what that’s supposed to look like? I guess you could assume it would feel a bit like being back in the Garden of Eden—you know, when everything was perfect and the first people were just working God's garden without a care in the world. But then again, maybe it won't be exactly like that, since Jesus gave us some hints about how things are going to change. He mentioned that we’ll basically be like angels, which apparently means no more marriage or getting hitched. So, if that's the case, I suppose sex is off the table too? It's almost like he's planning a second attempt at creating this flawless little vortex, filled with perfectly obedient gardeners. If that holds true, we probably won't be hooking up anymore; instead, everyone will just be playing harps and shooting nothing but arrows of love at one another. Everyone just totally vibing with everyone else, I guess. 🤷 ??

And just one more thing 🙂 (honestly, I’ll probably keep typing until my fingers give out): let's say, hypothetically, that Jesus really was God's son—meaning he actually "knew his Father"—as he claimed, whether he was losing his mind or not. It raises this question: would anyone have even dared to act differently? I mean, if you know that after a little bit of crucifixion and some suffering, you’re guaranteed eternal life, ruling in paradise, and getting that massive reward of being "the greatest in the kingdom of heaven"... who in their right mind would choose anything else? So, either he was just a regular guy who developed a really specific way of escaping reality because he was disappointed with what life had to offer, or he didn't do anything particularly special—basically, he just did what any sane person would do given those circumstances. He chose the lesser of two evils, or rather, the greater good. So, maybe he was a madman, but a smart kind of madman, where the madness comes from the premise of being God's son, while all his actions just line up perfectly with that core idea.

Then there's that third possibility—that Jesus could have chosen a different path entirely by serving the supposed Satan. If you follow that logic, it implies this figure is powerful enough to actually stand up to God, which, I guess, is pretty much the heart of Christianity—the whole teaching about the existence of a Great Evil and other wicked forces. In that light, maybe Jesus was just trying to play his cards right with His Father to secure a spot in the next kingdom, rather than siding with Satan just because he didn't like the terms of the deal. That's the flip side of his "madness": he believes he's God's son, but he also firmly believes in Satan and all those other evil spirits that occasionally jump from people into herds of pigs, which then leap off cliffs into the sea (maybe they're trying to reincarnate into something better after being stuck in pig form?). This whole mess might have started with angels, archangels, fallen angels, spirits, and all those mythological beings Jesus believed in just as much as he believed God was his Dad—beings that apparently fight over different worlds or sectors of the Universe or whatever. It seems like the Father of them all is either super lenient or has completely lost control; then again, some people think he died 😕. Statistics show women live longer, so if humans were made in God's image, who knows... Anyway, we should probably add to this craziness the idea that God spoke with his mother, and try looking at the world through that lens. How would you behave if you were convinced your mother had somehow communicated with God? It makes believers come up with all sorts of new questions, like, does a little Mary exist now? Did she become the Queen Mother of the Universe? And did the Devil come from some illicit affair? Did God sleep with women other than Mary? Did he lose his virginity to her? Did Mary reach a climax during the act or experience multiple orgasms? Why did God knead Adam from the dirt and make Eve from a rib, but make Jesus a totally different way?

In the end, is Satan going to turn Jesus' bones into stew, or is Jesus going to whip Satan into a stew like the prophets promised? Or was it all just a clever trick to keep the masses submissive, or perhaps just satisfied with the inherited value systems they've been handed? These are systems that shift through time and space, stubbornly defending themselves until they're eventually overridden by different views, driven by the will of the crowds or some other power source. And these systems are "smart" only insofar as the crowds and power sources behind them are smart and well-intentioned toward the rest of humanity.

From a psychological standpoint, I look at Jesus as a somewhat tragic demagogue with suicidal tendencies who found his purpose in preaching exactly what he wanted to believe. It's the same thing people wanted to believe hundreds or thousands of years before him, and the same thing people will want to believe thousands of years after him—that there is something massive and joyful waiting for us beyond this life, provided we do "this" and "that." People just want a formula for happiness they can grasp right now, or at least something to hold onto during their darkest moments later on. They need hope in *something* to act as the strength to endure hard times. It’s like when a parent tells a kid, "Clean your room and I'll buy you ice cream." Religious illusion is basically ice cream for adults, supported by everyone else in a loop that keeps the belief alive—which, for some, acts as a healing force, and for others, something totally destructive.

I guess I look at Jesus as being a victim of his own apostles and followers—just one more "messiah" caught up in the whirlwind of collective religious mania. On one hand, you have this madness, but on the other, you have what’s become a pretty standard, universally accepted "cure" for life's disappointments, or maybe just a tool to level up one's existence across all sorts of societies. It’s something that certain types of priests, prophets, and similar figures have cultivated and continue to nurse, whether it benefits or exploits the people seeking help—it really just depends on what someone is looking for in those specific moments. In our neck of the woods, it feels like they even want to introduce this kind of "medicine" into preschools. People go after it because it falls under that category of free stuff available to everyone, even though the potential side effects are massive. You’ve got things like Jerusalem syndrome, where people might stop eating, drinking, or enjoying ice cream and sex altogether; then there's radical shifts in how they act or dress, wandering off into deserts or monasteries, becoming drifters, or even worse, committing suicide. You see people losing interest in everything needed to actually sustain a life, living nakedly, giving away every cent they own, killing others, or showing intense intolerance and hatred toward the very things religions claim to protect. Not to mention all the other extremes or mild behaviors religion pushes. So, looking at it from our modern American cultural perspective, Jesus was probably just as "crazy" as someone from an Aboriginal tribe or any other culture out there. If he was totally in sync with his own people, then I guess he wasn't at all. Looking at it from the angle of his own well-being, it seems like he ate well, drank okay, walked around, rambled through the hills, and made a living through healing; his preaching lifestyle wasn't necessarily bad, but he died young and in total agony, so my final verdict is pretty negative. Maybe he fell in with the wrong crowd too early, but I honestly have a feeling his mother might have been the one who messed him up the most. Either way, we just don't have enough data to be certain, especially with all the controversy and obviously flawed translations of words, thoughts, and deeds that thousands of sects and millions of individuals argue over—likely mostly because of the constant, unwanted side effects that religion brings along for the ride.