agapeo

Well, you really don't have to, if you don't want to. I just wanted to make sure it was understood that your previous post didn't provide any evidence but rather more assertions. You could of said so.
Fair enuh. But providing evidence for our position is not IMO what this topic is all about.
Why bring GT into this?
Feeeeeelings, nothing mmore than feeeeeelings. Hey, sing along with me.
Does that mean I'm a step above GT? Hey, thanks! But you don't have to hurt GT's feeeeelings on my account.
I don't know either. You'll have to ask them, but I imagine they have good reasons for doing so.
Precisely. To you. Now when you can provide evidence maybe then I'll seek professional help. But hey, thanks for your concern for my well-being.

HelenM

Thanks for the reply schu, but I was hoping for evidence as in - you take a DSM-IV list and show how theists have symptoms of mental illness as described in there, which nontheists don't have.

Do you even have familiarity with the symptoms that would lead a person to be diagnosed mentally ill? Maybe you do. If so how about demonstrating that and along with it, showing how theists exhibit the symptoms that show them to be mentally ill?

Helen

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

We've now been through three qualifiers: faith, need and will of God. Let's see how this works in real life. Consider the case of the millions of starving people: Millions of Christians pray for an end to starvation, and surely a few of them are faithful, meeting qualifier #1. For the millions who are starving, food is a necessity, so we've met qualifier #2. However, we know God has done nothing to solve starvation. Again, I pose the problem: Either God was lying about answering prayer, or he is not loving enough that an end to starvation is within his will. Is there a way out of this?

Please, do let us know. That's the whole point of me asking all those questions.

Ok, is it true because:
1) It contains no scientific errors
2) It contains no historical errors
3) It contains no internal logical contradictions
4) It contains no theological contradictions
5) It contains no theological falsehoods
6) It is free of human influence
7) God wrote it
8) Some completely different reasons
9) Some combination of the above

I just want to know how much of the Old Testament still counts for you. That way I won't post any verses where you say "that's irrelevant!"

Joel

agapeo

Thanks for your response Joel. Let's see what I can do with them.
For you? No. For me? Yes, but not one that you would like perhaps. Show me where it is God's will to end the suffering of all inhabitants on the face of the earth in this day and time and all at once and I will pray for it. But I would tend to think that that prayer would of already been offered if it was something we should pray for.
If it's true that the poor will always be among us, how then is it God's will to end the condition of being poor for all. Thus you have eliminated qualifier #3 because you believe that if God was all-good He would end the suffering of all mankind with the wave of His "magic wand". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. At least not in this time period. Does this imply that God desires for people to be poor? Not according to 3 John 2:
The qualifier according to this verse is even as thy soul prospereth. When that soul prospers then God's wish will be manifested. IOW God is limited to our soul prospering in order for His will to be manifested. Does this imply that God is not all-powerful? No, it simply means that our wills must be in alignment and harmony with His and this allows God to bring to pass His will. As an aside -- Have you not read what is written in Matthew 13:58?
Btw – Being faithful and having faith are two different things. Please note that I am not liable for what other Christians pray for.
Very well, then. Here is the shorten version of how the text should be interpreted. The Word of God interprets itself in one of three ways: (1) it interprets itself in the verse where it is written; or (2) it interprets itself in its context; or (3) the interpretation of a word or phrase can be found in its previous usage . Not much to go on I admit, but I did say it was a shorten version.

You ask: Ok, is it true because:
1) It contains no scientific errors If it's God's true word IMO it won't.
2) It contains no historical errors If it's God's true word IMO it won't.
3) It contains no internal logical contradictions If it's God's true word IMO it won't.
4) It contains no theological contradictions If it's God's true word IMO it won't.
5) It contains no theological falsehoods If it's God's true word IMO it won't.
6) It is free of human influence If it's God's true word IMO it is.
7) God wrote it Nope
8) Some completely different reasons Covering all bases, are ya?
9) Some combination of the above Huh? Please note that if you wish to pursue this line of questioning this thread will quite possibly become unmanageable. Each one of the items you listed can be a separate topic on their own.
Post what you want. Then I'll let you know if it's relevant IMO and we can go from there. Surely you're not asking for guarantees.

Edited to correct formatting.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Pseudonymph

I was hoping for this too, and look foward to seeing it provided. I would be very interested as to what motivates a person to make such an umitigated and asinine statement.

emphryio

The idea of accusing christians of mental illness is to attempt to get them to think about the possiblity. If they could see how belief in christianity is somewhat like a mental illness, they may realize it isn't OK to be a christian.
I don't think it is meant as an insult.

But it depends upon your particular definition of "mentally ill".

I would say some high degree of illogical thinking eventually can be defined as mentally ill.

For instance believing you can fly by flapping your arms is a high enough degree of illogic to suggest mental illness.

Incorrect multiplication isn't.

To me, belief in christianity can get close to believing you can fly by flapping your arms. But I guess if that's what everyone around you says is reality, then ....

agapeo

emphryio:
I understand that but hasn't the same been said by Christians of Atheists? I doubt if you would/have appreciate/d it when a Christian considers you mentally ill because you don't believe in God.
Somewhat? Is that the same as being somewhat pregnant?
I seriously doubt that the way I've seen it hurled around here is meant as anything other than an insult. I could be wrong of course. Like I said -- Would you appreciate being called mentally ill because of your lack of belief?
Don't you think that should be determined by the professionals? Are you one?

I've said enuff.

HelenM

The ends don't necessarily justify the means. And, it's beside the point whether it was 'meant as an insult' or not. Although, I think it's odd you'd call it an 'accusation' and then try to say it's not meant as an insult. Your choice of word 'accusation' reveals that you know it's hardly an affirming thing to say!

What I've asked for is supporting evidence so the 'accusation' (to use your word) has some substance. I'm still waiting - that's all I know.

Oh come on - it's quite straightforward. You're just trying to backtrack on schu's behalf by saying this. We all know what it really means. Brain dysfunction.

</strong>

I think not. Either someone's brain is working correctly or it isn't.

"Holding foolish beliefs" is entirely different from mental illness.

No it isn't. You are confusing one possible symptom of mental illness with a collection of symptoms that point to a conclusive diagnosis.

...then it has nothing to do with brain dysfunction does it? That would be more of a group dynamic effect than anything else. And/or misinformation.

But - not a brain dysfunction.

Helen

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

HelenM

Evidently emphryio think's it's an acceptable way of challenging someone's belief system because he/she wrote:

I disagree. I don't think it's at all appropriate to try to provoke someone into a change with accusations that they are mentally ill that cannot be backed up and therefore are unfounded.

Helen

Pseudonymph

So if I want to call a child with a mental disability a retard because I want him to "consider the possibility"...then that makes it ok?

You are inherently implying it is justifiable and rational to denigrate someones religious beliefs into some type of mental disorder. Please...if you're going to say something so demeaning, at least be upfront about it...don't try and get around it by saying "oh it's for your own good". As Helen has pointed out, it's highly dubious that any theist here has been called mentally ill, only for the purposes of self exploration.

As I see it, this is quite merely a pathetic attempt at superiority and patronization. "Yes, all these theists are mentally ill, but somehow...YOU didn't fall for the joke, and now it's your duty to "educate" the less fortunate."


Please....

Aren't we promoting tolerance and understanding here?

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: SirenSpeak ]</p>