CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Debating the threats to Christianity (PDF included)

Debating the threats to Christianity (PDF included)

Started by Joshua Brown7 · · 👁 5 views · 21 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Joshua Brown7Rebecca Turner28Christian Torres3wearyowl29Jose Hernandez51Thomas Foster5Rebecca Rivera2Melissa Watson4rowdyhawk10mellowraven22
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#1 ·
Jesus' mental health?

I’m sorry, but this entire thread is an absolute disgrace and a direct insult to the God-man's personality, which naturally spits in the face of every single Christian believer out there... You wouldn't even dream of posing a question like this regarding Muhammad or the god he preached, because you know exactly what would happen—people would lose their minds, screaming in fury and outrage if you dared to ask anything similar about the scientific or atheist circles you all love to quote so much... This just isn't right. I really hope whoever is in charge of moderating this takes action, because this honestly crosses every possible line of decency...
Rebecca Turner28 Rebecca Turner28 Newcomer
6 messages
joined May 2009
#2 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:Ever wonder about what was actually going on inside Jesus' head during all that turmoil?

I’m sorry, but this whole thread is just a total disgrace, isn't it? It feels like such a blatant insult to the God-man's personality and, honestly, shouldn't it be considered a direct slap in the face to the feelings of every single Christian believer out there?

But why, though? Is there really some deeper reason behind it all that we just haven't quite grasped yet?
Why is calling someone "crazy" such a heavy insult anyway? Is it just because we're all too sensitive these days, or is there something deeper about how we judge people's minds?

Haven't all those mediocre folks just spent their whole lives labeling every true genius they encounter as nothing more than a lunatic?

Do you ever wonder if Tesla was actually playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us when it comes to mental health? I mean, between those auditory hallucinations, his old gambling streaks, and the heavy drinking, plus that whole celibate lifestyle and those intense visions he had... makes you wonder, doesn't it?
If you really think that stepping away from what everyone considers "normal"—which, let's be honest, it definitely was—actually takes anything away from the legacy of a guy like Nikola Tesla, or if it somehow diminishes the sheer magnitude of who he was?
Are we actually better off than the Tesla crowd just because we’re keeping it real and staying sane?

Man, is everyone just ignoring my last post? Heh... am I invisible or what?🙄
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#3 ·
I’ve already reached out to the one person who actually understands why this is such a blatant insult—someone who, out of pure decency, ought to step in and sanction this nonsense—but I really have no interest in wasting my breath trying to explain things to someone who either refuses to see the point or simply lacks the capacity to grasp it.We are talking about a figure who represents God to hundreds of millions of people, do you even realize the weight of that?So, when you start questioning the "mental health" of the very being we believe to be God and the Son of God, you aren't just debating; you are committing the most crude and offensive violation of religious sentiment imaginable.Look, we can have a civilized debate about the historical accuracy of His life, or whether He is indeed God or not—I’m perfectly fine with all of that within the bounds of a respectful, well-moderated conversation—but once you pivot to these senseless, biased, and intentionally insulting questions, the dialogue ends right there. There is nothing left to discuss with someone who isn't asking a question, but is instead making a malicious assertion... because that is exactly what this provocation boils down to.Go ahead, if you’re feeling particularly brave, ask the moderators if Muhammad or Allah are mentally sound. I dare you. Just pose that question and watch how fast you get hit with a permanent ban... though, deep down, I think you all already know exactly how that will go, don't you?
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#4 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:I dare you. Ask that question and see how fast you get banned... but hey, you already know how this works, right?!

The discussion was about the nature of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha... and it went on for a while, with some pretty harsh undertones directed at the guy leading the debate, so your logic doesn't hold up here.

He is God to hundreds of millions of people, get it? So questioning the "mental health" of the one we believe to be God and the Son of God is the most offensive thing you could possibly say to a believer!

And what about the people for whom Jesus isn't God or the Son of God—can they not discuss Him? Get real, this is an open forum.
Rebecca Turner28 Rebecca Turner28 Newcomer
6 messages
joined May 2009
#5 ·
Joshua Brown7 says:
So, basically, questioning the "mental stability" of the one we worship as God and the Son of God is just a straight-up insult to anyone's religious feelings, right?

But why exactly?

Do you honestly think someone's take on Jesus actually changes the truth about who He is?
(I mean, I don't really see how else it could be offensive)
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#6 ·
Christian Torres3 said:There was a whole discussion about the nature of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha... and it went on for quite a while, carrying some pretty harsh undertones regarding the subject being debated, so your argument doesn't really hold water here.

And what about the people who don't believe Jesus is God or the Son of God—are they just forbidden from discussing Him? You need to realize this is an open forum...

No, oh wise one... if you want to be direct, just ask a blunt, unambiguous question about the mental health of Muhammad and his god (since that's who he is to them, just as Christ is to us!!!), then compare the two. Go ahead, bring up Christ in this thread and compare Him to Stalin or Hitler, or suggest Muhammad was someone whose mental stability should be called into question and defend that stance... then we'll see how that goes.

So, when you talk about the "openness" of this forum, do you mean the freedom to easily insult and belittle someone else's sacred beliefs down to the level of pure idiocy? If you actually understood what democracy and the free exchange of ideas meant—rather than just performing the outward appearance of it, which seems to be the case for most people who swear by "openness"—you’d realize that everything you want to say still requires a certain level of decency that isn't offensive... which would actually prove you understood the concept. You people, who insult God and His believers with these kinds of topics and titles, seem to think you're the torchbearers of "democratic, modern enlightenment," wanting all the rights without any of the responsibilities... but, my friend, that isn't democracy. Rights come with obligations, in case you weren't aware. I explained all of this clearly in my previous post (especially the bolded part, which I suggest anyone struggling to grasp the point should read once more... just a tip for those who might need the extra help!) and I have no intention of wasting more breath on this talented display of irrelevance. I am appealing to the moderators once again to just lock this thread...
Rebecca Turner28 Rebecca Turner28 Newcomer
6 messages
joined May 2009
#7 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:You guys, by using topics and titles like this, you're basically insulting God.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that God is being insulted?
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#8 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:No, Einstein... just ask the question straight up and unambiguous, like asking about Muhammad's and Allah's—since he's their God, just like Christ is ours!—mental stability. Compare them then. Mention Muhammad as someone whose mental state should be questioned and defend that stance, and you'll see how fast things go down.

Biserka (if I may call you that, since we're being polite, right?), can any Muslim actually hold the same view as you? (Actually, I'm sure there are some out there.) But honestly, the best way to handle a question like this on an public forum would be to provide a solid defense of your points instead of just screaming "I'm offended."

Look, it's the twenty-first century. Check the clock and get with the times.

BTW, check the Messages, Wishes, Comments PDF if you want to request that the super-admin shut this thread down. Give it a shot.
wearyowl29 wearyowl29 Regular
715 messages
joined Feb 2014
#9 ·
Rebecca Turner28 said:Where on earth did you get the idea that God is being insulted?

It’s not God who gets offended—it’s just the religious ego at work.
Jose Hernandez51 Jose Hernandez51 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#10 ·
wearyowl29 said:God isn't the one taking offense here—it’s just our own religious egos acting up.

And let's be honest—that ego is nothing more than a false god, a counterfeit version of Yahweh.
It plays the part of the vengeful, jealous, boastful tyrant perfectly, doesn't it?

No one is truly immune to this kind of internal corruption—if anything, I’d say it has a massive following,
including us, because we mirror those very same flaws.
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#11 ·
If you had actually grasped any part of what was written above, you wouldn't be circling back to the exact same points over and over again. And as for calling you a "wise guy"—that wasn't meant as an insult, despite how much you seem to have taken it... it was just my way of pointing out how skillfully you shift the focus away from the actual core issue toward irrelevant nonsense, which isn't right, and I believe I’ve been more than clear about what is happening, why it's happening, and why this thread needs to be shut down once and for all.
The fact that we're living in the 21st century should really be a reason to communicate things in a decent, respectful, and non-offensive manner, rather than attacking the deepest religious convictions of your interlocutor—because frankly, doing that just shows blatant malice and nothing else... especially when you're dealing with the very foundation and way of life for hundreds of millions of people, so maybe this idea of "adjusting and adapting" is advice you should offer to someone else, or perhaps even take to heart yourself. I’m asking the moderators one more time to close this thread, especially given its shameless and utterly offensive title!
Thomas Foster5 Thomas Foster5 Member
11 messages
joined Jan 2009
#12 ·
Look, if I personally decided that Hitler was a deity and held him in high esteem, would that mean we can't discuss his mental health without offending my religious sensibilities?

Or do I need a following of 100 million people to make that happen?
What’s the actual quota of followers required to turn someone's mental state into a taboo subject?
Or is the issue simply that the legend of Jesus is ancient?

What kind of criteria are we even using here?

Take Sai Baba, for instance.
He has about a million or so followers who view him as a god.
Does that mean I'm forbidden from publicly questioning his mental stability?

Who exactly is barring us from questioning and studying the world around us—including our own religious feelings?

Christian beliefs often leave you closed off to any change in perspective; they are essentially designed with circular logic that self-validates, making it nearly impossible to break out of that absurd loop.
And this "ban" on questioning someone's reliability only proves it—because there is an a priori assumption that such a figure is a perfect god.
It's nonsense.
Rebecca Rivera2 Rebecca Rivera2 Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2009
#13 ·
Thomas Foster5 said:So, if I personally decided that Hitler was a deity and held him in the highest regard, would that mean we aren't allowed to discuss his mental stability without offending my religious sensibilities?

Or do I need a following of 100 million people to achieve that status?
What exactly is the required quota of followers needed to turn someone's psychological state into a taboo subject?
Or is the issue simply that the legend surrounding Jesus is ancient?

What kind of criteria are we even using here?

Take Sai Baba, for instance.
He has about a million followers who view him as a god.
Does that mean I am forbidden from publicly questioning his mental health?

Who exactly is barring us from scrutinizing and studying the world around us—including our own religious sentiments?

Christian beliefs tend to make people closed off to any shift in perspective, largely because they are structured around circular logic that self-validates, making it nearly impossible to escape that loop of absurdity.
This "ban" on questioning someone's reliability only reinforces that point, as it operates on the a priori assumption that such an individual is a perfect divinity.
It’s nonsense.

Keep in mind, I wasn't actually calling for censorship of the topic, but let the record show that I have been flagged more than once just for generally mentioning Dawkinsites, purely as a joke and in a completely benign manner. It’s a display of double standards and pathetic criteria. In reality, the most stubborn atheists act as the ultimate censors, and they’ve effectively begged for punishment over things that are utterly trivial and meant in jest.
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#14 ·
@Thomas Foster5/">@@Thomas Foster5

Comparing him to Hitler is just fundamentally wrong and frankly makes no sense at all because, on one hand, you have the God-man, God Logos, the most righteous among the righteous, and on the other, you have an ordinary man who turned out to be nothing more than a massive catastrophe for humanity...

To you, Jesus' persona might be some myth, but for many, He isn't just anything less than that; He is the most real figure in the entire history of mankind, the one who provides actual meaning to the whole existence of this world and everything in it...

Look, nobody is stopping you from asking questions or doing your own research, but I’ll say it for the fifth time now... just don't resort to insulting Him with these empty, biased, malicious comments and shameless names for the One whom a massive global population considers God and the Savior of humanity... if you could just present your thoughts in a decent way with some actual substance, so we can tell there's a genuine desire to talk rather than just a drive to belittle and insult, then there wouldn't be any problem at all. I assume you're capable of that much?

What you're labeling as "circular logic and absurdity" is actually salvation for some people, you know? In fact, "circular logic" doesn't even belong to Christianity; it belongs to the world outside of Christ, and He proved that through His teachings, His resurrection, and the fact that Christians who are deeply familiar with the Christian theological and philosophical concepts of the world and man know this well—which is why we believe that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2. Corinthians 5:17)...

So, calling this "stupidity" is completely misplaced... a lot of people simply don't know how to hold a conversation... and insults aren't a conversation...
Thomas Foster5 Thomas Foster5 Member
11 messages
joined Jan 2009
#15 ·
I didn't mean to cause any offense.
My point is simply that these kinds of taboos don't make much sense—and if I do say so myself, I think the topic was presented quite decently.
Based on actual, solid arguments.
Joshua Brown7 Joshua Brown7 NewcomerOP
9 messages
joined May 2009
#16 ·
Thomas Foster5 said:I didn't mean to cause any offense...
I’m just pointing out that these kinds of taboos are completely pointless, and honestly, I think the topic was brought up pretty decently enough...
Now we’re finally getting somewhere... actually using some real arguments for once...

It’s all good, really... I never actually thought you were trying to be insulting...😉
To me, that title just doesn't sit right. It isn't decent, and frankly, there isn't a single logical or moral argument to back it up, especially when we are talking about the very essence of God's personality... you know what I mean, right? We're discussing God, not some ordinary guy walking down the street... For those who actually follow Christianity, we aren't talking about some mere human individual... we’re talking about the God-man subject personality, the second person Holy Trinity, God the Son... He was the one who truly embraced the human condition, and honestly, you have to give him credit for that...Because that's the core belief we hold onto, the very thing that serves as the bedrock for everything we do in this life...Look, we really need to start talking from this perspective, because if we can actually respect where the other side is coming from, there won't be any need for all those cheap insults or these pointless, trivial topics that just waste everyone's time... instead, we could finally engage in a real "pro and con" dialogue based on some actual common ground. Cheers...
Thomas Foster5 Thomas Foster5 Member
11 messages
joined Jan 2009
#17 ·
I get why this topic might feel like an emotional gut punch to some people—believe me, I do—but I don't think we should label it taboo just because it hits a nerve.
Look, I’m all for tolerance and showing one another respect, but I’m also a firm believer in free speech and the freedom to hold an opinion.

My thought is that we could approach this specific discussion from a psychological angle: looking at whether the Christ depicted in the Bible would be considered emotionally and mentally stable by today's standards.
Essentially, we’d be basing the conversation strictly on the actual text found in the New Testament.

No insults intended—just a clinical look at the words.
Christian Torres3 Christian Torres3 Regular
604 messages
joined Sep 2014
#18 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:If you actually understood any of what was written above...


Whatever. One more time: go talk to the Holy Trinity and take your complaints to the admins. Good luck to ya. 👋
Jose Hernandez51 Jose Hernandez51 Newcomer
2 messages
joined May 2009
#19 ·
Wait, what am I looking at here?
Melissa Watson4 Melissa Watson4 Member
24 messages
joined Dec 2008
#20 ·
Joshua Brown7 said:Jesus's mental health?

I’m sorry, but this thread is just an absolute disgrace. It’s a direct insult to the God-man's character and, honestly, to any Christian believer out there. I guess people wouldn't dare ask something like this about Muhammad or the God he preached, because they know they'd face immediate backlash. They'd probably lose their minds if the same questions were aimed at figures from the scientific or atheist circles you all love to quote so much... it's just wrong. I suppose someone in charge should step in, because this really does cross the line of decency.

Just let them be... I suppose it was always meant to happen. This seems to align with the prophecies being fulfilled in our own era....😉

"First of all, you should know that in the last days, scoffers will become widespread. They will follow their own desires and ask, 'Where is his promise of coming? Since the ancestors died, everything has remained just as it was since the beginning of creation.'"

"1 And this you should know: in the last days, difficult times will come. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemous, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, fierce, unloving, 4 traitors, reckless, without self-discipline, indulgent, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God."

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads