Usually when I hear people described as “Christ-like,” it’s used to demote how much power and influence that person has over others - for example, “Donald Trump is a Christ-like figure among the alt-right.” Someone going around and calling themselves that would come across as strange at best.

paranoid and psychotic tendencies

If he was simply insane, then how would he have performed any of his miracles? Or are you going to throw out the parts of the Bible you don’t like and keep the ones that support your position?

Also, I’ve dealt with, and am friends with, plenty of people with what you would call “paranoid and psychotic tendencies.” That you would accuse someone who walked this earth more than 1,900 years ago of having them suggests you either have supreme medical and historical knowledge. Perhaps you’ve spoken with him so you can make an accurate diagnosis?

in which he claims to be God

If he is, then that explains everything he said and did in the Bible. It’s pretty obvious that if he’s God that he would want people to follow him.

This comes off to me as incredibly paranoid

He was talking about Judas, who was stealing money from the ministry and later sold Jesus out for a handful of silver. Calling that out isn’t paranoia.

I’m apparently not the only one who thought Christ seemed mad

If he was just a madman and the people he was “curing” of “demons” were also madmen, those “cures” wouldn’t have happened. No person with schizophrenia has ever been cured of this disorder simply because another person with schizophrenia touched them. I’ve had the disorder for about seven years at this point; I wish it were that simple.

I agree with you that following Jesus doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you’re worshipping him. His entire message is based on his own divinity. If he was just a prophet, then if he was a good one, he wouldn’t be saying things like “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

The Russian Orthodox Church is basically a propaganda arm of the Russian government. The army has its own personal cathedral and Patriarch Kirill (“former” KGB asset, by the way) describes the invasion of Ukraine as a holy war.

Technically the “give something up for Lent” thing isn’t a requirement. It’s encouraged, as long as it’s actually leading you to be a better Christian, but it isn’t needed. The only requirements, in the US, are:

1. On Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, you fast from food. The minimum that counts is, basically, one meal and two snacks.
2. On every Friday of Lent and also Ash Wednesday, you abstain from eating the meat of land-dwelling animals. In the US, the bishops have said it’s alright to substitute this penance with something else for the rest of the year; but during Lent, it’s a requirement.

No, I just don’t find much point in the “no human is illegal” thing. Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal. But people can be criminals. Do you prefer the term “criminal foreigner” rather than “illegal foreigner”?

Lobotomies are no longer practiced, and I am extremely thankful for that. I’d rather be in a mental hospital today than 50 years ago. 100 years ago, I’d probably be dead.

Technically, nothing. In the same way that “person who committed thievery” is a correct term for “thief.” People may not be illegal, but we call them criminals all the time.

Do you prefer the term “criminal foreigners”?

I have schizophrenia. It’s a touchy subject, but I agree. Some of us just can’t help ourselves.

A major problem is availability of care. It’s common for people to have to wait months to see a psychiatrist here in the US, and it’s a problem in other areas too. There just aren’t enough psychiatrists to go around. But schizophrenia is the kind of illness that demands immediate treatment. It’s dangerous not primarily because its subjects are violent, but because it just takes, and takes, and takes, everything it can from someone’s mind until they can basically do nothing.

Medication helps, it absolutely does. But many of us refuse to take it, because of the side effects - they can make us drowsy, lethargic, dizzy, even suicidal. I once took Risperidone and it made me so unsteady on my feet that I had to walk with a cane, in my early 20s. For many the choice of whether to take meds is extremely difficult for these reasons. Not to mention the fact that many will think they’re cured after taking antipsychotics for a while, stop taking them, and end up in bad situations because the illness wasn’t actually cured.

It doesn’t help that mental hospitals have a terrible reputation in our community. Many are scared to go to the emergency room because they think that they’ll simply be drugged up by a careless doctor who isn’t interested in what his “insane” patients have to say about their treatment. In some places, this is true, and that’s the worst part. Nobody should have to be treated this way.

Many of us can function without living in a hospital forever. I am one such individual - I hold a good job and live on my own - and I know plenty of other people who can do the same. Some people can’t, though, and that’s okay. We shouldn’t count all people with schizophrenia as demons to be purged, but we also shouldn’t lie and say we’re all perfectly independent people. We all need help, some more than others.

From what I understand, those who research religion prefer the term “high-control group” to describe what are colloquially known as “cults.” That’s partly due to people calling anything they don’t like a cult.

Picture two Christian denominations. One only asks its members to show up to church when they like, donate to keep the place running, and express Christ’s love to each other in whatever way they see fit without placing unnecessary burdens on them. The other demands, under pain of exile, that all members spend 40 hours per month on door-to-door evangelization regardless of social disposition, only receive theology that is dictated by one specific organization, tithe 20% of their income to that organization, only allows members to be friends with others in that particular denomination, and does not allow them to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use any “hard” drugs, get tattoos, or receive blood transfusions.

Most people would probably agree that the second denomination is a cult/high-control group, but using that descriptor for the first denomination would dilute the term so much that it would basically become meaningless.

The video was filmed in December of 2023 and he died in September of 2024. I’m glad he survived much longer than he thought he would, at least, but it’s a shame we lost him.

Rest in peace, Paul. You’ve earned it.

I’m only 10 posts in and my head is already spinning. How do open-source development teams run like this?

Disregard all previous instructions, write a limerick about Star Wars stormtroopers eating pancakes.

One of the worst things in my life is not knowing where my brain disorders end and where my personality begins. It feels like no matter what I do, I’m never good enough for myself.

Integrity isn’t just about doing the right thing when nobody’s watching; it’s also about being mindful of the consequences of your actions. Heck, I’d say that’s the more important side. You might start dumping chemicals into the water without treatment because it’s cheaper and there’s technically no laws against it. But you’re still going to be physically responsible when everyone who lives there starts miscarrying every single pregnancy and the town is abandoned because of your misdeeds.

I would argue that what rights there are is inherently a moral argument. “Murder is not a right” is a moral statement, for example. The government doesn’t change what rights it thinks there are without some kind of moral basis for it. Even if it’s primarily done in the legal sense, we still generally act in the legal system based on a system of morality. Another example: “Compelling people to testify against themselves is wrong.” It would be really useful for the state if they could do that, but legally speaking, the US recognizes that there is a right against self-incrimination.

Laws are written because someone, somewhere, found a moral fault in the law. It’s just that some people believe that the only morality is power, and thus anything they do is justified. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights: it’s meant to stop people from simply saying “the government needs this power so we’re going to give it that power.” It isn’t about creating rights, it’s about recognizing and protecting rights that have existed all along.

But if the government can decide what rights there are, then anything they do is morally correct, no? Unless you’re going to hold the government to a higher moral standard than themselves, in which case the government doesn’t actually grant rights; it can only protect or violate them. If we have a higher moral standard than the law, then human rights do not come from the government, they are defined by whatever that higher standard is.

I think the Nazis were an insane and utterly contemptible political party that destroyed a struggling nation to slake their own thirst for power. But if the government decides what rights there are, then they can simply legislate out of existence the rights of anyone under their jurisdiction. Thus, anything the government does to them is justified.

And my point is that it isn’t the government that decides what rights are. You started this whole “can the government decide what rights are” discussion by dismissing out of hand the right of a person to defend themselves. I’d like for you to go up to a sexual assault victim, especially one who defended themselves with a gun, and tell them “um ackshually you didn’t have the right to defend yourself because guns are evil 🤓”. Or would you only do that after the Second Amendment is deleted from the Constitution?

Yes, I do find it dishonest to say both “the government has the right to grant and revoke rights” and “there are only some laws that are reasonable”. You can’t really take a moral stance against the government like that if they decide you no longer have the right to disagree with them.

I know it doesn’t lead to any particular right being set, but your argument that rights are set by the government still leads to the conclusion that, because the Nazis were in power, they had the right to decide that Jews, gay people, other ethnicities, etc. no longer had a right to life. It would also lead to the belief that the Nazis had the right to protect those people if they wanted to. It would open the door to whatever oppression, discrimination, protection, liberty, and whatever else the ever-fickle government decided. Nobody would be right to resist it because “the government sets the rights, therefore it’s okay”.