If you read the article, you'll find out that the report didn't claim that Jesus "suffered from mental health problems," but that some people around him THOUGHT he suffered from mental health problems. The difference is much the same as saying that, because the birthers say so, "President Obama may be a Muslim born in Kenya."

Take it up with the CoE.

Was there a historical Jesus?

mental health issues probably play in a wide variety of reliigious experiences. His series of lectures on this topic are presented in his book The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Interestingly enough, he does not say that the possible mental health issues that lead to religious experiences necessarily obviate the validity of those experiences.

I am not a believer myself, but those who are believers do not need to shy away from reading his book for fear of having their beliefs challenged.

I didn't appreciate it at the time, but The Varieties of Religious Experience has a perfect balance of respect and skepticism.

It is sadly missing today, and recently it's prompted me to defend a lot of positions I don't really believe in because the criticsm is so dismissive and uninformed.

by some of the religious officals of his day because he spent much of his time with outcasts.

I think both in the case of his family thinking he had mental health issues and in the attacks of religious officials, it illustrates how (according to the Gospel writers) Jesus presented a way of life that challenged traditional social structures like the family and traditional religious authority and orthodoxy.

Do you have problems with people who have infirmities or imperfections? I don't think Jesus ever claimed he was perfect. That claim was made much later by others who chose to profit from his experience.

I simply posted a news article, without comment, that I found interesting. Leave it to you to immediately launch into some passive-aggressive personal attack.

Par for the course, I guess.

That's progress, at least.

Back to the basement with you now.

That's all that's needed to diagnose childish passive-aggressive behavior.

Now back to preschool with you.

Your attacks are out of line.

He posted an article, without comment. How about you discuss the article rather than individual posters?

I have no issue with the article. I am more interested in promoting tolerance here and showing others that all atheists are not intolerant of beliefs and believers, but we can be as open minded as the most liberal theist.
He is part of a subset of atheist members who serial post in this group, for the sole purpose of inflaming. You know that, I know it, he knows it and all who regularly come here know it.

Does it promote tolerance to just launch into attacking someone as you did? What kind of example are YOU setting?

Take a good look at your own behavior before you even begin to lecture others. Otherwise your appeals for tolerance ring quite hollow.

I set an example of standing up to bullies and bigots. I set an example of defending others when I see them being bullied or subjected to abuse of power, especially when they cannot speak for themselves. I set an example by pointing out to others, how they needn't cower before these bullies, nor need they become their toadies. I understand that we are not all cut out to be leaders, but when I see the mindless responses from some of his giggling sycophants, I feel the need to speak up.
I sincerely hope it promotes tolerance, otherwise I wouldn't be here. The subject of religion, in itself, is not very interesting to me, but human interaction is something that fascinates me.

cleanhippie posted an article. You attacked him. Who's the bully again?

Think about the example you set. Try treating others like you'd prefer to be treated. End the cycle of bullying.

You obviously don't understand what bullying is. And yes, I do have a vivid imagination. It's a wonderful gift that I truly appreciate.
Now, why do you think CH posted the OP?

It was:

Do you have problems with people who have infirmities or imperfections?

There was absolutely no reason to question cleanhippie's motivations in such a bullying way. When you treat people like that, it should be no surprise that you get the reactions you do.

Stop the bullying. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I'll look forward to your behavior improving - and I think you'll see others respond nicely when they aren't attacked, bullied, or passive-aggressively smeared as being "bigots" or "intolerant."

You'll feel better in no time.

then I don't think there's much hope for you.

I'll ask you again, please give up the bullying. Treat others like you want to be treated - with respect, I assume.

Try it and you might just be surprised.

Maybe you should try standing up to yourself...

I and my family have been victims of Cyberbullying on DU. The principle bully, laconicsax, was appropriately PPR'd. Other members of that bully's group are still around and continue to smear and intimidate. I will continue to stand up to them as long as they continue or until they leave. I have never been a bully, nor have I ever been a willing victim. We need some serious house cleaning around here and the basement is always a good place to start.

Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as

actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.

Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.

A cyberbully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyberbully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

First off, it is a false claim to say laconicsax was PPRed for cyberbullying you or your family. That is simply not true.

Secondly, you have been flinging accusations and insults this entire subthread - accusations that are hurtful, targeting others. In other words, they are "deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another."

You really need to take a good, long look at your own behavior. It's very disturbing and malicious.

ST, it's time for you to take a serious self evaluation of your own behavior on these forums.

About us

Time to Change is England's biggest ever attempt to end the stigma and discrimination that faces people with mental health problems.

It is a campaign to change attitudes, and behaviour too. One in four of us will experience a mental health problem in our lifetime – and if we do, we are highly likely to face stigma and discrimination from others.

http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/

are tragically common, even on DU, and often not recognized, even by the sufferers. Realizing you have a problem is one of the most important steps in getting help.

Fortunately it is not tragically common on DU. It is limited to bigots.

out when you see them. Not that you'll be able to defend them. Not if by "snide" you mean "false" at any rate.

Keep posting.

I'll assume that by "routinely" you meant "never, that I can point out"

made after your regular nasty screed against religion and believers fits the bill.

But you know that. I've already told you that.

As a second example, read your first post in thisc subthread. More passive aggressive innocent ("who me&quot llinking of mental illness and belief. You insult both those who have mental illness and those who believe.

It's all rather repellent.

"rounds are over" has been explained on multiple occasions, and does not imply that the person I'm responding to is mentally ill. Do you need it explained again, or are you just going to lie about it?

And my first post in this subthread agreed with you that mental health problems are stigmatized and often go unrecognized and untreated. What part of that do you have a problem with? In what part did I link mental illness and belief? EXACTLY what part? Not your paranoid, victimized projections, but what part of what I actually SAID?

You fail miserably on "snide" and "routinely"....And like Starboard Tack, have nothing but insults and no facts. Have a nice night.

Let me add to that post . . . . you are predictable.

Nothing but lies and insults that you can't EVER back up with facts. We're done here.

You left out the exclamation point.

Here's one.

!

Is there a depth to which you will not stoop? Your comments on this board definitely win the prize for nastiness, intolerance and derision. Not only do you insult people of faith, but also the infirm. Have a nice day.

I expressed "nastiness, intolerance and derision". Where did I "insult" ANYONE? Where in that post did I say ONE WORD that wasn't true and that didn't recognize the problems and stigma that people with mental illness face?

If you can't do that, I'll expect an apology for your lame, insulting bullshit.

Let's start by reminding everyone of what you said about fellow members. You must think we are all stupid as well as being mentally ill.

"Yes, mental health problems are tragically common, even on DU, and often not recognized, even by the sufferers. Realizing you have a problem is one of the most important steps in getting help."

is to put words in my mouth and attributed things to me that I never said or implied.

Are you saying that mental illness is much rarer among DU members than in the general populace? Common sense would tell you that there is no particular reason this should be so. I've said nothing to the effect that they must be religious believers, now have I? That's just you putting words in my mouth.

And are you saying that everyone who simply doesn't recognize that they may have a mental health problem MUST be in "denial"? Because I certainly never said that and don't think it. Some people have something wrong and just don't know it, or just don't know what it is.

Sorry, but you fail miserably on all of your accusations. I know you'd like to make me look bad, but today's not your day.

If you don't believe in ethical atheism, why are you posting here, if not to belittle and demonstrate your lack of open mindedness. You claim that atheists should "strive to be more ethical, moral and compassionate than they are" yet when any of us exhibit such traits, we are branded as "apologists".
You can try to mask your hatred and intolerance in rhetoric, but your reputation precedes those attempts.

to the debunking of your claim, and have to go digging through boards you're banned from posting on to look for something else (totally unrelated to the post you responded to here) to use against me, I'll consider further discussion with you here a waste of time.

And btw, it's you who have belittled here, if anyone. I asked you to point out where I had insulted anyone, and you failed miserably. And if you thnk that apologetics defending child rape and the enabling of child rape, or homophobic bigotry is "striving to be more ethical, moral and compassionate", that's really pathetic.

Your posts get uglier and uglier.

if you thnk that apologetics defending child rape and the enabling of child rape, or homophobic bigotry is "striving to be more ethical, moral and compassionate", that's really pathetic.

to make any diagnosis of his mental state. All we have are second and third hand accounts that have been edited and changed. There are no eye-witness accounts of the man or anything he is supposed to have said or done. And never mind all the translations. In truth, there was nobody named "Jesus" at all. Even the name has been changed in the translations and accounts. Whomever is being referred to by that name was certainly called another name in his own time. We have nothing but a created account of some things that may have occurred at that time, and nothing more.

Such attempts at long distance diagnoses made millennia later are stupid, and bring even more discredit on the sciences of psychology and psychiatry than already have accumulated.

Such stuff should be simple ignored as meaningless musings by people in need of publication and publicity.

Just one atheist's opinion...

used to make bread. So a lot of what people saw as visions probably was nudged a little by the LSD...

is probably not a great marketing strategy.

Is that it?

Bah.