patrick.net

socal2 says

Strategist says

A Catholic priest and a scientist is as compatible as oil and water. I doubt he ever proved the world was 6,000 years old, nor could he have come up sensible arguments against evolution. Any scientist who believes the earth is 6,000 years old is a wacko who needs meds.

Catholics (and most Christians and Jews) believe in evolution. They don't believe the world is 6,000 years old.

Then why do they even bother reading the Bible, a book that claims the earth is 6,000 years old, and the sun revolves around the earth? Either the Bible is wrong, or it's right.

socal2 says

FFS - the founder of modern science of genetics (Gregor Mandel) was a Catholic priest!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Do you really not know this?

A priest 200 years ago had no modern science knowledge. It's just a claim. I repeat.....the Bible is the last place you want knowledge from.

socal2 says

Democrat slave holders

Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy and deception. Today's Republicans were called Dixiecrats before Nixon's Southern Strategy. You know that, yet you continue to tell the lie that it isn't the same line of people who owned slaves in the 1800s, started the KKK after the Civil War, practices segregation for half the 20th century, opposed interracial marriages, and now oppose gay marriages. They switched parties but they didn't switch their politics.

socal2 says

But I do enjoy calling out self-righteous totalitarian progs like you.

Another premature victory dance.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

therefore I will throw a lame and uncreative ad hominem attack

Dan8267 says

You have a small penis.... But attacking the messenger isn't going to make your dick bigger.

?????????????????

That's an example of a creative put down after having decimated his arguments by attacking the arguments themselves. You wouldn't understand the difference because like socal2, you are simply too stupid. Chalk it up to generations of incest.

SoftShell says

Interesting that time frame was when pot smoking took hold and became commonplace instilling the notion that getting fucked in the ass was an act promoting family values..

If you wife doesn't let you fuck her in the ass, she's not promoting family values or spending quality family time together.

Strategist says

That's what I was always told. "You will burn in hell for eternity" "Like a worm on fire"

How is it supposed to work?

It's strange that the one conservative ideology Strategist rejects is religion. Now if only he could see that the rest of the Republican platform is equally b.s.

thunderlips11 says

socal2 says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

You realize that Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the 1970s in the US, and disqualified you from a host of things, including a Security Clearance?

Ah, the hypocrisy of socal2. Finding another man attractive: crazy as shit. Believing that people rise from the dead: perfectly sane.

Oh, and I didn't make up the law that the mentally incompetent can't vote. I'm just saying that it should be applied in a non-discriminatory way. None of the conservatives have yet even dare try to refute that.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

That's what I was always told. "You will burn in hell for eternity" "Like a worm on fire"


How is it supposed to work?

It's strange that the one conservative ideology Strategist rejects is religion. Now if only he could see that the rest of the Republican platform is equally b.s.

It isn't all b.s. There is good and bad in everything. Every issue is different, and that's all I go by, regardless of politics.
When it comes to managing the economy, the republicans make more sense. When it comes to religion, the liberals make make sense. That's why I am an independent....someone who thinks for himself, rather than have others do the thinking for him. What about you?

Dan8267 says

Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy and deception. Today's Republicans were called Dixiecrats before Nixon's Southern Strategy. You know that, yet you continue to tell the lie that it isn't the same line of people who owned slaves in the 1800s, started the KKK after the Civil War, practices segregation for half the 20th century, opposed interracial marriages, and now oppose gay marriages. They switched parties but they didn't switch their politics.

Dan, shhhhh! Too much nuance, makes Conservabrains go Ka-BOOM!

New York Times, circa 1963:

"Psychiatrists, Religious Leaders, and Police concerned". That NYT, so Liberal!

I have a problem with your assertion that oil and water are not compatible.
There are many married couples who sleep in separate rooms. They are compatible, as they live in the same house together.
So oil and water may occupy space in the same glass and yet be deemed compatible.
Or it might depend on what your usage of "as" is...or "is" as ...what?...gimme a libby dictionary...i'm lost!

Strategist says

A Catholic priest and a scientist is as compatible as oil and water.

I've always wondered why this number has not been incrementally increased on an annual basis ever since it was first declared.

socal2 says

Catholics (and most Christians and Jews) believe in evolution. They don't believe the world is 6,000 years old.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I'd say all the religious preachers are the ones giving us that perception.

You are looking at all those phrases without understanding the meaning, not meant to be taken literally. There is a special meaning behind all those sayings and phrases.

Why would God want to talk in riddles and confuse everyone? Followers of every religion reinterpret the words of God to reflect the latest values, thus flushing the true message down the toilet.

Dan8267 says

Ah, the hypocrisy of socal2. Finding another man attractive: crazy as shit.

Here's more shit that you just made up. Where have I ever said that?

Dan8267 says

Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy and deception. Today's Republicans were called Dixiecrats before Nixon's Southern Strategy. You know that, yet you continue to tell the lie

I love reading the contortions and history revisionism Democrats have to go through to paint over their deplorable past.

Next thing you will be saying is that it wasn't religious groups in America that fueled the Abolitionist movement to free the slaves.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement

Then you will be saying it wasn't Liberal Progressives using scientific arguments to justify the Eugenics movement.
http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

One hundred years from now when Democrats finally get a clue and a heart and give up their caveman practice of abortion, they will be claiming it was Republicans who were the pro-abortion party!

wow...you work for the NSA??

anonymous says

SoftShell says

They are compatible, as they live in the same house together.

Always nice to use an example from your personal life -

Not that I can tell...why do you ask?

anonymous says

Doesn't this concept require separate residences or at least separate doorways for interracial couples?

Or maybe one likes a hard mattress and one likes a soft mattress...occams razor...you know... *

anonymous says

More likely one or the other or both realized they made a huge mistake and either can't afford a divorce, staying together for the sake of the children (bless their little hearts) or the church commanded them to lest they burn in hell forever....

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Ah, the hypocrisy of socal2. Finding another man attractive: crazy as shit.

Here's more shit that you just made up. Where have I ever said that?

socal2 says

As much as Gays and Progs think they can divorce procreation from marriage - it doesn't change basic biology and millenia of civilization.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy and deception. Today's Republicans were called Dixiecrats before Nixon's Southern Strategy. You know that, yet you continue to tell the lie

I love reading the contortions and history revisionism Democrats have to go through to paint over their deplorable past.

The history of Dixiecrats is the history of the Repubilcan Party and reflects the vile values of today's Republicans.

Today's Democrats come from the Northern Democratic Party, not the Southern Democratic Party.

Yes, back when the American South was all Democrats, the Democratic Party was evil precisely because it was composed of people from the American South. It's really the American South that is evil and has always been. The American South
- were slavers
- raped child slaves
- committed treason to maintain slavery
- lost the Civil War, but still is fighting it
- started the quintessential terrorist organization in American history, the Klu Klux Klan
- lynched black families for 100 years
- defied the law when segregation was made illegal
- Unconstitutionally opposed interracial marriage
- Unconstitutionally opposed same sex marriage

It's not a shock that the descendants of slavers are scumbags just like their ancestors were when the American South has long harbored a culture that is basically like the one ISIS is trying to establish. If the people of the American South want to no longer be viewed as barbaric bigots with low intelligence and high inbreeding then they need to divorce themselves from the culture and vile values of their ancestors, plain and simple. As long as the South glorifies its evil past, the South will rightfully be perceived as barbarians. The reason that modern Germans are viewed as Nazis is that Germans don't glorify Nazi Germany or propose that Nazi values be the values of the modern state. If they did, the Germans would still be viewed as Nazis.

If the South doesn't want to be ashamed of the sins of its past, it must stop committing those sins and related ones.

Strategist says

Why would God want to talk in riddles and confuse everyone? Followers of every religion reinterpret the words of God to reflect the latest values, thus flushing the true message down the toilet.

God doesn't talk in riddles, man talks in riddles. And it only is riddles since it was written many years ago when such was not a riddle, it was common understanding.

anonymous says

And you have the uncanny ability to know the true meaning ? How do you do it?

Ask for an explanation or plenty of preachers explain the meaning behind the old language. It's not that hard.

Noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was religious groups (the people he thinks are insane and shouldn't be able to vote) were the main force behind the Abolition movement to end slavery.

Also noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was Northern Progressive who were behind the Eugenics genocide of the early 20th century........and still are big fans with their support of aborting babies, the majority of who are black or poor.

Simply put, Northern Democrats with their love of Eugenics and Abortion have done more to destroy black lives than all Democrat slavers combined.

socal2 says

Simply put, Northern Democrats with their love of Eugenics and Abortion have done more to destroy black lives than all Democrat slavers combined.

socal2 says

I am not talking about Stalin. I am talking about American Progressives of the early 20th Century. Margaret Sanger for example. The Progressive Eugenics crowd (along with Democrat slavers) had all sorts of "logical" and "scientific" arguments justifying the liquidation of certain races and undesirables.

"Progressive genocide"

http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/

Talk about pulling things out of your ass. Margaret Sanger was a champion of birth control not eugenics. She condoned eugenics, not at all the same thing. I've read her autobiography. She was against abortion, Find one thing Sanger wrote that targeted blacks. She was invited by black leaders like James H. Hubert to help with educating blacks about birth control. Black ministers and leaders praised her repeatedly.

Blacks weren't targeted for eugenics either, low iq people were. Eugenics didn't liquidate anyone, people were sterilized. California had the most, something like 40% of all sterilzations were in CA. Any actual facts on what percentage were black you would like to share? I won't holding my breath waiting for any. Yet another right wingnut living a fact free life.

bob2356 says

The Progressive Eugenics crowd (along with Democrat slavers) had all sorts of "logical" and "scientific" arguments justifying the liquidation of certain races and undesirables.

This is in striking contrast to all the conservatives who say "Darwin awards" and "shouldn't be allowed to breed" every 15-25 minutes.

bob2356 says

Talk about pulling things out of your ass. Margaret Sanger was a champion of birth control not eugenics. She condoned eugenics, not at all the same thing.

She did more than just "condone" eugenics.

"Her own words and television appearances leave no room for parsing. For example, she wrote many articles about eugenics in the journal she founded in 1917, the Birth Control Review. Her articles included “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925) and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), to name a few."

bob2356 says

Find one thing Sanger wrote that targeted blacks. She was invited by black leaders like James H. Hubert to help with educating blacks about birth control. Black ministers and leaders praised her repeatedly.

"In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939)."

"She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

NC was the most aggressive in sterilizing, almost every request brought before it's Board was approved.

The Harrimans and Averells and Kellogs were key in financing eugenics societies. All three families can from theological and commerical backgrounds, with Kellogg founding a Missionary College. Harriman's father was a wealthy man and a Pastor.

Forced Sterilization is one of the least known aspects of American History. Despite Margaret Sanger, the vanguard was mostly WASP conservatives, with Protestant Preachers taking a particular interest.

By the way, sterilization as a must for welfare benefits (say after the 2nd out of wedlock birth, and having 2 kids already you can't afford is plenty of Reproductive Right excercised as it is), and forced sterilization of Schizophrenics and others may not be so bad. Somebody who wears aluminum foil on their head is not in a position to really decide to have kids, or raise them.

Conservatives of course, ignore the huge role of Wealthy 1%er families and Ethno-Religious makeup of those pushing Forced Sterilization and Eugenics generally, instead focusing only on Sanger because she pushed for birth control and abortion. The date of which states approved Eugenics matches up well with the highest Klan member states.

In fairness to North Carolina:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article9068186.html

Many of these sterilizations are at the request of parents, whose kids are truly mentally ill or handicapped and have been assaulted previously or will never have the judgement to avoid being abused, and by parents who want to stop having kids. Most of this is prior to the Pill.

thunderlips11 says

Conservatives of course, ignore the huge role of Wealthy 1%er families

There are no Liberals or Progressive in the Wealthy 1%?

Conservatives didn't make Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood the Patron Saint of their party either.

socal2 says

I don't think unborn babies is a "problem" to be managed. I think life is a blessing. That is the fundamental difference between people like me and you.

The soon to be 9 billion people on the planet is a real problem. All those abandoned babies that no one wants to adopt is a real problem. The fathers who ejaculate and leave is a real problem. If you can't care for a child, it's best not to have a child.
By the way, an unborn baby in the first trimester is a fetus, not a baby.

socal2 says

There are no Liberals or Progressive in the Wealthy 1%?

While there were some Progressives who worried about Poverty and the Human Condition, most of the Eugenicists were worried about Master Racial Purity. The Nazis were no progressives, whatever HL Hunt and Jonah Goldberg may say. Charles Davenport ran Cold Spring Habor Laboratory and was avid about controlling "Inbreds" and the "Racially Inferior", like the Italians, who are given to outbursts of Irrational Behavior. He also considered FDR to be a typical physical handicapped person whose condition moved him towards "Dictatorial Powers".

Strategist says

The soon to be 9 billion people on the planet is a real problem. All those abandoned babies that no one wants to adopt is a real problem. The fathers who ejaculate and leave is a real problem. If you can't care for a child, it's best not to have a child.

By the way, an unborn baby in the first trimester is a fetus, not a baby.

Yep. It's ridiculous you need a license to drive a car or serve liquor or own a pet in many places, but any fuckhead can reproduce and force society to make up for his/her irresponsibility.

Naturally, religion depends on the indoctrination of children, so it favors mass reproduction to keep going.

socal2 says

Noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was religious groups (the people he thinks are insane and shouldn't be able to vote) were the main force behind the Abolition movement to end slavery.

Actually, I can. Christianity was used as a justification for slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments are very pro-slavery. The only times the Bible mentions slavery is to support it.

Now how many of the slavers were atheists? Zero. What percentage of atheists were against slavery? 100%. Sure, there were more religious nuts in the 19th century than today, but that doesn't make them more moral, just more plentiful.

If everyone were an atheist in 1860, slavery would have been abolished without a Civil War. The truly moral person does what is right, not out of delusional fear of a fictional dictator or greed for eternal life, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Christians seem incapable of understanding that.

socal2 says

"She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks."

She spoke about birth control. She spoke to many groups of all types. Why did you leave out so much of what she said? I have the book, here is the full quote.

"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing. My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be served later. I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver. I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was 1 concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back. Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was right, she stepped on the self-starter. For fifteen minutes we wound around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon. We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large, unpainted, barnish building. My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me severely, "Wait here. We will come for you." She disappeared. More cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though it was May, I grew chillier and chillier. After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak. Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o'clock. I could not even send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly one before I reached Trenton, and I spent the night in a hotel."

Pretty amazing someone that was a racist advocating black genocide was invited to work with so many black groups. Not just speak, involved in the groups. I'm sure your other quote is just as badly out of context and misquoted.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Noticed that Dan can't dispute that it was religious groups (the people he thinks are insane and shouldn't be able to vote) were the main force behind the Abolition movement to end slavery.

Actually, I can. Christianity was used as a justification for slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments are very pro-slavery. The only times the Bible mentions slavery is to support it.

Socal2, how can you even imply Christianity is anti slavery? You will get beaten to a pulp in any debate.
The Bible clearly states the price of a slave, and how a slave should be treated. Nowhere does it say you should not have slaves. Even the 10 Commandments does not talk about freeing the slaves. Our secular constitution is far more moral than the Bible.

bob2356 says

Pretty amazing someone that was a racist advocating black genocide was invited to work with so many black groups. Not just speak, involved in the groups. I'm sure your other quote is just as badly out of context and misquoted.

Out of Context is essential for Conservatives. Like "Hitler was against smoking, so he was a liberal."

Strategist says

Socal2, how can you even imply Christianity is anti slavery? You will get beaten to a pulp in any debate.

Because American Christians were the driving force behind the Abolitionist movement.
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement

Some people around here seem to think that all Christians read the Bible as literal as Muslims or something. Newsflash, the Old and New Testament were written around events thousands of years ago when a whole lot of shit that we think is crazy was the norm in both religious and secular society.

socal2 says

Some people around here seem to think that all Christians read the Bible as literal as Muslims or something. Newsflash, the Old and New Testament were written around events thousands of years ago when a whole lot of shit that we think is crazy was the norm in both religious and secular society.

I really like what you said here. That is how societies the world over was at that time. You must admit, if the Bible reflects a bygone era, it must have limited use in today's world. It also requires a lot of reinterpretation, with some not willing to do so. And there is our problem. Too many Muslims don't reinterpret their Koran, which is why we have this problem on our hands.

socal2 says

Because American Christians were the driving force behind the Abolitionist movement.

That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.

Strategist says

I really like what you said here. That is how societies the world over was at that time. You must admit, if the Bible reflects a bygone era, it must have limited use in today's world.

Some things are timeless. Much of ancient Greek Classical philosophy from Aristotle and Plato holds up today. Same with the 10 Commandments and Jesus' Golden Rule.

Strategist says

That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.

That's just dumb. Christianity didn't create or instigate slavery. Us apes were practicing slavery long before Abraham, Moses or Jesus were around. Virtually every society on the planet regardless of their religious or lack of religious beliefs had slavery. The ancient Greeks had slaves. The Ancient Romans and Egyptians had slaves. The Mayans and Aztecs had slaves. The Native American Indians had slaves.

But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

Strategist says

That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.

Jesus Strategist, you made a good point.

socal2 says

But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

They introduced it all over their colonies. What killed it wasn't Christianity, but the fallout from the Enlightenment, Christianity's most hated development.

The most Christian states, the least Pluralistic states (ie One Denomination Christian States), and the ones that felt the Enlightenment was a Satanic-Jesuit-Jewish-Masonic Plot were the last to repeal it, see Spain and Portugal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America

The history of the Counter-Enlightenment is very interesting. For all the bullshit claims that Fascism descends from Liberalism, it is much more aligned to the Counter-Enlightenment's love of Medievalism. The Counter-Enlightenment of Throne and Altar continues to spew bullshit to this day. Bgamall is totally in hoc to it's ideology.

socal2 says

Strategist says

That may have been so, but Christians can't take credit for ending slavery in America, if they instigated it in the first place.

That's just dumb. Christianity didn't create or instigate slavery. Us apes were practicing slavery long before Abraham, Moses or Jesus were around. Virtually every society on the planet regardless of their religious or lack of religious beliefs had slavery. The ancient Greeks had slaves. The Ancient Romans and Egyptians had slaves. The Mayans and Aztecs had slaves. The Native American Indians had slaves.

But it was largely Christian groups and Christian dominated countries that were FIRST to abolish slavery around the world.

No no no no no.
The God of the Bible says you should treat slaves kindly.
Strategist, the hard core atheist going to hell says, you shall have no slaves.
Who do you agree with Socal2? Who has the superior morals here? The Atheist, or the God?
I bet you will never be able to give an honest answer to this question.

thunderlips11 says

Jesus Strategist, you made a good point.

I'm an atheist. What did you expect? :) :)

This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...

SoftShell says

This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...

What, don't you have a couple of hours to go, or is that Socal?

SoftShell says

This is a great debate. You Boyz keep at it. I'm going to make a fried spam sandwich...

Damn you. Now you got me hungry for a spam samich.

"I have not come to bring peace, but with a sword... to set father against son, brother against brother, etc. etc." - Jesus, Paraphrased.

Yet he is billed as either "Love" and/or the "Prince of Peace" in the same document.

thunderlips11 says

Paraphrased.

The quotation you are looking for is:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household."

In fairness, the context seems probably to imply a metaphorical sword, cleaving family relationships but not bodies.

If Jesus lived as an actual person (which Paul seems not to have believed), then Mark 3:21 describes him as what we would call schizophrenic: "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." Back in those days, religious people prone to believe in unseen spirits believed that the symptoms of schizophrenia resulted from demons, i.e. demonic possession. That made sense to them because schizophrenia manifests usually around age 20, when around 1% of the population start hearing voices and suffering delusions of grandeur and persecution. The character Legion ("for we are many") seems clearly to be suffering from schizophrenia. Schizophrenics can be otherwise brilliant (e.g. John Nash), somewhat like the autistic idiot savant character in Rain Man had extraordinary counting ability. Most people recognize that schizophrenics are clearly delusional, but the early Christians seem to have made a different choice: to present schizophrenic delusions as fact. That turned out to be much more lucrative than any other approach (until PhRMA came along and turned anti-psychotic drugs into a booming industry, including ads on TV for suckers who had been fooled into buying toxic SSRI placebos; when the SSRIs don't work, it means the patient must be psychotic and need aripiprazole). Monetizing mental illness goes back a long way, from faith healers casting out demons to the current Vatican priests selling exorcisms and Obamneycare mandating prepayment for toxic and disproved pills.