CLE Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: strangersmind on October 01, 2019, 06:48:41 PM
-
Jackie
you said something about the bible being silent or vague, can you give us an example?
You said not everyone who takes psychology become a counselor, can you tell us what are you planning on using the degree for?
You said you do find some psychology in line with the bible, can you give us an example?
-
Jackie
you said something about the bible being silent or vague, can you give us an example?
I'll do my best. One good example that I'll briefly give is this. On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do. It talks extensively about making images of God (and consequently worshipping those images themselves or using them in worship) and that's bad. I'm not saying that Chris or I were right or wrong in this matter. I'm just saying that the Bible doesn't talk about it really, so that might be one of those areas where it's only sin if it violates our own conscience.
My general point with my comment on disagreements over matters where the Bible is silent or vague is that this is one reason why we have the forum here. It's so that we can discuss such things, and hopefully in a rational, respectful, and sophisticated way.
You said not everyone who takes psychology become a counselor, can you tell us what are you planning on using the degree for?
Good question. At the moment I can't say I'm completely certain which direction I want to take. I know I don't want to do counseling. Right now to help pay the bills, I work part time as an in-home ABA therapist. Essentially I go to the homes of my clients (my clients are children with varying degrees and types of special needs). I work with them on their speech/communication skills, social skills, challenging behaviors (such as hitting to get attention, running away from doing work tasks, going up to strangers indiscriminately, running away from caregivers in public, throwing items, kicking, hurting themselves, etc), reading literacy, matching skills, and basic life skills (such as potty training, teeth brushing, self-feeding). I also work on teaching the other family members how to implement these techniques when I'm not around.
I am also interested in psychological research, and perhaps working for a major hospital or university in that role. I have many areas of interest when it comes to research. These areas are including but not limited to: people with disabilities or special needs, Alzheimers/dementia, social relationships, developmental psychology, and many topics related to young college aged adults. The topic of my Masters' thesis involves the perceptions that young college students have about old people (adults over age 65).
You said you do find some psychology in line with the bible, can you give us an example?
I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.
-
Jackie, I've been doing some research of my own in some of those areas you mentioned and in almost every case, these conditions are caused by poor nutrition. For instance, nobody ever heard of Alzheimer's 40 years ago until 'health' professionals suddenly decided that cholesterol is 'bad' for you and started substituting vegetable oils for animal fats. The myelin in the brain (and around all the other nerves as well) is all made up of cholesterol! So, in essence, people have been starving their brains.
The road to recovery for these people lies in proper nutrition, not psychology. Dietary supplements are pretty much a necessity now with all the GMOs, and herbicides/pesticides that are being sprayed on crops and the soil is very much depleted in the nutrients it once contained. Commercial fertilisers don't contain ALL the necessary trace elements the body needs, either. In fact, they contain very few.
I know you've spent a lot of time and money on your education so far, but if you REALLY want to help the people you're talking about, maybe naturopathic medicine would be a better route.
-
Jeanne,
I know this is unrelated to psychology, but you mentioned cholesterol and Alzheimer's. I've done a little research on this myself. The body actually produces all the cholesterol it needs. Dietary cholesterol isn't necessary and does cause damage to the arteries, including in the brain. If you are interested, I've linked a couple videos below reviewing studies on the disease. Below each video is a tab that says "sources cited" if you want to take a closer look.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/alzheimers-and-atherosclerosis-of-the-brain/ (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/alzheimers-and-atherosclerosis-of-the-brain/)
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-prevent-alzheimers-with-diet/ (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-prevent-alzheimers-with-diet/)
-
Laura, I just took a quick look at those links and Michael Greger (author) is an M.D. Medical doctors and naturopathic physicians have entirely different philosophies when it comes to treating the human body. (I know Chris doesn't like the term 'human' but I don't know what else to call it right now.) Medical doctors only treat symptoms, not the causes of the symptoms, much like a psychologist/psychiatrist tries to treat spiritual problems through physical means. (And many times, some of THOSE can be treated with proper nutrition, too!)
If a medical doctor finds that the blood has too much cholesterol, his only concern is in lowering the cholesterol level in the blood, not in finding out why the body isn't processing it properly. That's why all they do is prescribe medications to mask the symptoms and do nothing to find the root cause of the symptoms. All they care about is money; and medical doctors who practice allopathic medicine make a whole lot more money when people are sick than when they are well. Doctors get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies when they prescribe drugs. Ask yourself why Bayer (a pharmaceutical company) just recently bought out Monsanto, who is responsible for things like GMOs and glyphosate (Roundup). They actually WANT people to be sick so they can sell more of their products!
You should read Chris' book on The Cure For Cancer, as it goes into a lot of all this stuff. You might be surprised at how much trouble the medical community goes to to suppress the truth.
https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/cureforcancer.php
-
Jeanne,
Yes, he is a medical doctor. Did you watch the video? I agree with you about most medical doctors only treating symptoms and not finding the root cause, but I don't think that is the case here. The author of the video advocates using diet as treatment, not drugs. Doing so can improve or reverse most chronic diseases. It's good that you are skeptical though. I don't agree with using drugs either; as you stated, they only treat the symptoms and cover up the problem but do nothing to fix it. There is a lot of money to be made in keeping people sick and the pharmaceutical industry has so many under it's control - no disagreement there!
-
I am currently reading a book by a naturopathic physician. Here is what he has to say about Alzheimer's, but I left out part of what he said at the end of this section because he advocates a particular brand of supplements. (One of them, though, is an Omega-3 fatty acid supplement that I recently started taking.) The only reason that he can get away with recommending this particular brand, though, is because he has no financial interest in the company or the sale of its products.
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
MD Cause: Unknown. According to Wikipedia: The most common type of dementia is Alzheimer's disease, which makes up 50% to 70% of cases. Other common types include vascular dementia (25%), Lewy body dementia (15%), and fronto-temporal dementia. Less common causes include normal pressure hydrocephalus, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease among others. More than one type of dementia may exist in the same person.
MD Rx: None. The only drugs that the MDs have at their disposal which help to manage the symptoms of Alzheimer's are acetylcholinesterase (ACE)-inhibitors.
ND Cause: Statin drugs, fat-free diets, salt free diets, chronic nutrient deficiencies, and the consistent consumption of pro-inflammatory foods. Did I mention cholesterol lowering Statin-Drugs?
Discussion: More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease right now. It is projected that by the year 2050, that number could hit 16 Million! In the USA, 1 of every 3 senior citizens dies from Alzheimer's disease. Since the year 2000, deaths from Alzheimer's disease have increased 89%. This all happened on the MDs' watch. They are to blame. On the next page are two graphs. One is the incidence of Alzheimer's over the last 100 years and the other is the introduction and sales of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs from their inception in the early 80s until the present. Do you see any similarities?
Statin drugs lower circulating levels of cholesterol in the body. 90% of the part of the brain which is affected by Alzheimer's disease is made from cholesterol. 75% of the total brain is made from cholesterol. The vast majority of your central nervous system is made from cholesterol. Cholesterol is so important to the human body that your body makes it. It is reasonable to assume that when you drive cholesterol into the ditch with statin drugs, fat-free diets, and exercise your brain will dry up. The medical community even admits now in published research that one of the side effects of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs is dementia, but that multi-billion-dollar industry is not going to go down without a fight. So don't expect your MD two recommend that you stop your statin drugs anytime soon.
My Rx: In addition to the 90 Stop taking your Statin drugs immediately.
- Make sure that you salt your food so that it tastes good.
- Eat a diet high in cholesterol.
Glidden, Peter. Attempt A Cure With Wholistic Medicine: Dr. Glidden's Naturopathic Treatment Notebook For The Enlightened (pp. 108-109). Kindle Edition.
-
I sort of wish Jeanne had not split up this thread because it's getting too confusing now. I also want to point out these things to stay more on topic. I'm convicted to address this matter because now we're getting down to deception, and I'm going to have to remain firm due to that. To preface, there is a reason why I did not respond to Jackie's response, namely, after Jackie said the following, I had no more interest in responding to her:
Again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motives. I'll admit I was reluctant to say anything in the first place, as I knew you would jump straight onto the fact that I study psychology, and that would impede the effectiveness of an honest critique. Honestly, though, it didn't matter to me what word it was that you decided to focus on. I would've done the same thing. I've been criticized for doing the same thing in my personal life in my discussions with people. I've found people to be much more receptive to what I say if I don't nitpick words, especially if doing that would detract from the overall subject.
The main problem with her post was that it was denial of the truth. I pointed out to Jackie that the entire response that I gave to Leslie, who was doing wickedness (i.e. railing) even in his letter to me, had almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, Jackie made a huge issue out of one short sentence that I made to him. (And it should be noted that Kevin gave a great response to it, and he immediately saw the same thing I did.) The real reason Jackie did that was because she wanted to argue to justify HERSELF, not Leslie, and that was overtly obvious in the post, and as she pointed out, she suspected that would be the case, and as I'm pointing out, that's because she already knew in her heart what she was doing, but she won't confess it. If she's not going to confess the truth, I have no interest in conversation with her because it will be endless and waste a lot of time. (Btw, it should be noted that she was also speaking on Leslie's behalf, having never spoken with the man before, claiming that she knew what he meant, even though she couldn't have, which also revealed her true intentions, which was to justify herself; that is, her study of psychology.)
I wanted to add in that I explained to Jackie that the Bible does not teach us to "visualize" God or Jesus. However, witches and psychologists DO teach doing that, and I provided links in my first post, and I'll provide the link here (I know it's confusing, and that's why I wish the thread had not been split):
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993)
Jackie is claiming the positive (i.e. "I can do X") without providing evidence of X. She instead wants us to provide "thou shalt not do X." If anyone wants to learn more about the subject in general, here's a teaching on it:
The Biblical Understanding of Prayer (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/prayer.php)
The following needs some context, and I'll add the link here to the "God is with us" post Jackie was referring to: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992)
On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying).
That's partially deceptive because what I was responding to was her claim, which I paraphrased as: "If the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY forbid a practice, then it's okay for us to do." Again, click on the links above, and I provided examples to Jackie to demonstrate that what she was claiming was not true, and Jackie NEVER confessed her error. She ignored it, which is exactly what she's doing here too. It's a pattern. It's obvious from her testimony here, she read it what I said, but she did not respond, and that's one of the reasons why I said I was expecting this type of outburst from her, like her accusations that I am appearing "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."
I want everyone to understand that Jackie's pride should be VERY apparent to everyone by now. To the simple, it might appear Jackie is being very reasonable, but that's because she's learned a lot of public relations (i.e. propaganda) techniques from her college, and she's not going to like that I'm saying that, but I don't believe anyone has pointed out that she is doing the exact same thing that many other people who have come here have done when they give so-called "apologies" that feign repentance. Watch this:
I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of being exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish. I'm sure you were insulted by that, and I'm sorry (because I wasn't trying to do that). Not my intention, nor what I was trying to say.
Folks, let's try an exercise to help understand this better. Let's suppose you were walking down the side walk carrying a hot drink, you lost a bit of your foot, bumped into a woman, and spilled the hot drink down the front of her dress. With that in mind, I want you to say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry!"
That comes out fairly naturally, doesn't it? If it did for you, that's because you actually felt sorrow and remorse for what you had done, even if it was an accident. You were taking responsibility for what you had done.
Now think about doing the same thing again, losing your footing, spilling your hot drink all over the front of her dress, and now say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry it seemed like I had poured my drink all over you, that wasn't my intention."
If you followed the exercise and said that outloud, you probably felt a bit awkward saying it the second way. The reason for that is because it is not really an apology by which a person would have regret for what happened, but rather, it diverts away personal responsibility. Remember how many teachings I've done in which I talk about people who love to talk about their "good intentions," and how the road to hell is paved with them? That's because "good intentions" are irrelevant in the face of facts because facts prove HIDDEN evil intentions.
In short, readers not exercised in discernment might take Jackie's words here to be humble, but they are far from it because all she really said here was, "I'm sorry you feel that way," which is ironic in a sense because that's EXACTLY what you would expect to hear from a psychologist.
What's even more ironic is that Jackie started out this whole thing by telling me: "Chris, I am going to be upfront with you here and get to my point," and yet, I still believe she's not really being straight-forward with me, and is hiding behind public relations techniques. Some upfrontness would be a good start.
Hmm... I'm looking at the time, and I have an appointment I need to keep. I don't have the time to address all the things Jackie wrote. I hope that at least helps some of you see some of the core problems, and if those of you in our church want to discuss those things of what she wrote in more detail on Thursday night over Skype, we certainly can, and it'll be a lot easier over the call for me to demonstrate those subtle details so we can see the deception and contradiction in the things she wrote.
As a final quick note, I've long been curious how many people (2000 year ago) said that Jesus looked to be "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."
-
Jackie, I've been doing some research of my own in some of those areas you mentioned and in almost every case, these conditions are caused by poor nutrition. For instance, nobody ever heard of Alzheimer's 40 years ago until 'health' professionals suddenly decided that cholesterol is 'bad' for you and started substituting vegetable oils for animal fats. The myelin in the brain (and around all the other nerves as well) is all made up of cholesterol! So, in essence, people have been starving their brains.
The road to recovery for these people lies in proper nutrition, not psychology. Dietary supplements are pretty much a necessity now with all the GMOs, and herbicides/pesticides that are being sprayed on crops and the soil is very much depleted in the nutrients it once contained. Commercial fertilisers don't contain ALL the necessary trace elements the body needs, either. In fact, they contain very few.
I know you've spent a lot of time and money on your education so far, but if you REALLY want to help the people you're talking about, maybe naturopathic medicine would be a better route.
I'm not going to disagree with you that naturopathic medicine might be a good direction to head for me in terms of research . While I don't believe diet fixes everything or causes everything, it certainly is a major key factor.
I'm always skeptical when someone says something like "No one heard of - before such and such time." First because I think there is so much that we don't know about some conditions that it is quite ludicrous to point it to one cause. Second, medical diagnostics were not always what they are today. Many conditions have been around for a quite a while but no one knew enough about them to really define them until long after the first recorded cases. Tuberculosis is one. Nevertheless, I am willing to entertain the idea that Alzheimer's hasn't been around that long and am willing to read the research you've found on this if you'd be willing to share.
I'm also a bit skeptical when blanket statements such as "This one thing will cure everyone who has this condition." If not even Tylenol or Ibuprofen work for everyone, why should we reasonably think that anything else (even the natural stuff) will? Especially in a very complex disease like Alzheimer's. However, again, I'm willing to investigate this matter further in the future.
Not to mention, the clients I work for are children, and they do not have Alzheimer's. They have varying types of special needs and disorders. Some of them are genetic defects. Forgive me if I am very skeptical about diet being able to fix the damaged DNA. Sure, I'll concede that a proper diet could possibly alleviate some of the symptoms. But there are many factors that make a proper, organic diet unavailable to most people (never mind the big risk that it might not work anyway. There is always that risk no matter what therapeutic route you go). Some of these kids have severe eating issues anyway, so getting them to eat anything at all (even food that virtually no kid says no to, like chips) is a struggle. The answer is not always black and white.
-
I sort of wish Jeanne had not split up this thread because it's getting too confusing now. I also want to point out these things to stay more on topic. I'm convicted to address this matter because now we're getting down to deception, and I'm going to have to remain firm due to that. To preface, there is a reason why I did not respond to Jackie's response, namely, after Jackie said the following, I had no more interest in responding to her:
Again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motives. I'll admit I was reluctant to say anything in the first place, as I knew you would jump straight onto the fact that I study psychology, and that would impede the effectiveness of an honest critique. Honestly, though, it didn't matter to me what word it was that you decided to focus on. I would've done the same thing. I've been criticized for doing the same thing in my personal life in my discussions with people. I've found people to be much more receptive to what I say if I don't nitpick words, especially if doing that would detract from the overall subject.
The main problem with her post was that it was denial of the truth. I pointed out to Jackie that the entire response that I gave to Leslie, who was doing wickedness (i.e. railing) even in his letter to me, had almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, Jackie made a huge issue out of one short sentence that I made to him. (And it should be noted that Kevin gave a great response to it, and he immediately saw the same thing I did.) The real reason Jackie did that was because she wanted to argue to justify HERSELF, not Leslie, and that was overtly obvious in the post, and as she pointed out, she suspected that would be the case, and as I'm pointing out, that's because she already knew in her heart what she was doing, but she won't confess it. If she's not going to confess the truth, I have no interest in conversation with her because it will be endless and waste a lot of time. (Btw, it should be noted that she was also speaking on Leslie's behalf, having never spoken with the man before, claiming that she knew what he meant, even though she couldn't have, which also revealed her true intentions, which was to justify herself; that is, her study of psychology.)
I'm not going to confess to a lie. I realize though that nothing I say will convince you of the truth of the matter. But in all honesty, had I wanted to justify my field in that instance, I wouldn't have tried to defend a theory that I don't even agree with. That would be ridiculous and hypocritical of me. Again, perhaps I should have said nothing, because it is quite clear that in this instance, you can only see what you want to see in me. And it is causing you to make false allegations against me without knowing me or knowing the facts.
I wanted to add in that I explained to Jackie that the Bible does not teach us to "visualize" God or Jesus. However, witches and psychologists DO teach doing that, and I provided links in my first post, and I'll provide the link here (I know it's confusing, and that's why I wish the thread had not been split):
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993)
Jackie is claiming the positive (i.e. "I can do X") without providing evidence of X. She instead wants us to provide "thou shalt not do X." If anyone wants to learn more about the subject in general, here's a teaching on it:
The Biblical Understanding of Prayer (http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/prayer.php)
I fully admit that I might be wrong in what I do by having an image of God in my mind on occasion when I pray. I would like to know the difference between doing that and doing what Dee does, which is talking to God as if He's right there with her. She may not be imagining a visual of God, no. But she did say, and I quote "and the idea came to me, "why don't i just 'talk to God' as if He is right next to me..." Yet, I was rebuked by you for also speaking to Him as if He was right next to me. . "Furthermore, in the imagination, you are conjuring up the image of God OUTWARDLY. That's not where the Bible says that God resides in those who are born again.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
-1Co 6:19
Therefore, God is closer than you are visualizing, and we ought to follow what he has instructed us to do in His Spirit, rather than what we feel like doing because witchcraft is based on feelings rather than truth.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
-John 4:24"
I'd like some clarification on why that was. Maybe it's just the hang up about me sometimes literally imagining God is right there with a visual? Maybe I am misunderstanding what Dee said. Or maybe since you know Dee and you don't know me, you're more apt to correct me.
The following needs some context, and I'll add the link here to the "God is with us" post Jackie was referring to: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992 (http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992)
On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying).
That's partially deceptive because what I was responding to was her claim, which I paraphrased as: "If the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY forbid a practice, then it's okay for us to do." Again, click on the links above, and I provided examples to Jackie to demonstrate that what she was claiming was not true, and Jackie NEVER confessed her error. She ignored it, which is exactly what she's doing here too. It's a pattern. It's obvious from her testimony here, she read it what I said, but she did not respond, and that's one of the reasons why I said I was expecting this type of outburst from her, like her accusations that I am appearing "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."
I fully admit that in that God is With Us post, yes I was ignoring your response. It wasn't the right thing to do, and I'm sorry. No, this is not me agreeing with your response in that thread. I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though. I wish you didn't think that, but I'll grant that you're exceedingly used to apostasy and false converts (or at least people being offended and leaving in a huff). Perhaps you even expect it as a default out of everyone you encounter here.
apparent to everyone by now. To the simple, it might appear Jackie is being very reasonable, but that's because she's learned a lot of public relations (i.e. propaganda) techniques from her college, and she's not going to like that I'm saying that, but I don't believe anyone has pointed out that she is doing the exact same thing that many other people who have come here have done when they give so-called "apologies" that feign repentance. Watch this:
I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of being exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish. I'm sure you were insulted by that, and I'm sorry (because I wasn't trying to do that). Not my intention, nor what I was trying to say.
Folks, let's try an exercise to help understand this better. Let's suppose you were walking down the side walk carrying a hot drink, you lost a bit of your foot, bumped into a woman, and spilled the hot drink down the front of her dress. With that in mind, I want you to say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry!"
That comes out fairly naturally, doesn't it? If it did for you, that's because you actually felt sorrow and remorse for what you had done, even if it was an accident. You were taking responsibility for what you had done.
Now think about doing the same thing again, losing your footing, spilling your hot drink all over the front of her dress, and now say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry it seemed like I had poured my drink all over you, that wasn't my intention."
If you followed the exercise and said that outloud, you probably felt a bit awkward saying it the second way. The reason for that is because it is not really an apology by which a person would have regret for what happened, but rather, it diverts away personal responsibility.
Interestingly, in the scenario you gave there are times when people who feel bad for spilling their drink on someone will say "I'm sorry that this happened. I didn't mean to spill my drink on you!". I'm sorry you were hurt by what I said. I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing. That would be the difference between admitting that spilling the drink was an accident and lying that you spilled the drink on purpose to make the other person feel better (or even be more willing to forgive you or something strange like that). If I had spilled the drink on purpose, I'd either 1. not say sorry out of pride, or 2. eventually admit what I did and apologize in humility. But again, I realize you wouldn't know that for certain, as you don't know me.
Remember how many teachings I've done in which I talk about people who love to talk about their "good intentions," and how the road to hell is paved with them? That's because "good intentions" are irrelevant in the face of facts because facts prove HIDDEN evil intentions.
I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell (either as a false convert or as a misguided genuine convert) with good intentions.
In short, readers not exercised in discernment might take Jackie's words here to be humble, but they are far from it because all she really said here was, "I'm sorry you feel that way," which is ironic in a sense because that's EXACTLY what you would expect to hear from a psychologist.
Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing (which in this case, you think it is intentionally calling you arrogant, childish, etc.). Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here? Let's not kid ourselves. You believe that psychology and anything remotely related is evil and is of the enemy. Therefore anyone who studies it or is in that field MUST be always a liar, doing the devil's work, puffed up in pride, etc. If I'm wrong in this, please correct me.
What's even more ironic is that Jackie started out this whole thing by telling me: "Chris, I am going to be upfront with you here and get to my point," and yet, I still believe she's not really being straight-forward with me, and is hiding behind public relations techniques. Some upfrontness would be a good start.
And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to. Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar. For clarification, I don't care if you take my word or not. I'm not going to sit and pretend I have all the answers and that what I say is always good and beneficial. But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded "hidden intentions".
Hmm... I'm looking at the time, and I have an appointment I need to keep. I don't have the time to address all the things Jackie wrote. I hope that at least helps some of you see some of the core problems, and if those of you in our church want to discuss those things of what she wrote in more detail on Thursday night over Skype, we certainly can, and it'll be a lot easier over the call for me to demonstrate those subtle details so we can see the deception and contradiction in the things she wrote.
And now I know that my time here has been wasted. From this quote and the first paragraph and the fact that you refuse to address me directly here, I can see quite clearly that you want to continue with your straw man argument. Furthermore, you're opening discussions about what I've said without me being present to discuss what I've said as well. This could be a good way to dissect the errors of what I said without my influence, or it could be a way to manipulate the thinking of others. I really hope that manipulation of people's thoughts is not your intention and that won't be the case. I am not saying or even trying to say that this is what you're doing. I just think it is wise to be a bit skeptical of someone who is presenting a case against someone and that person's words while also trying to not engage with that person and possibly trying to keep that person away from the discussion of the case. However, I also know that I'm not in your church and it is perfectly reasonable to discuss topics started by others who are not present, even when it is possible to have that discussion in a situation where they would be.
I know I can't expect you to address me on this again, since you've already said you have no interest in doing that.
As a final quick note, I've long been curious how many people (2000 year ago) said that Jesus looked to be "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."
Jesus has more wisdom than you or I or anyone else ever will. He is perfect and is actually able to read people's hearts (accurately, 100% of the time). You and I both know that Jesus was called all kinds of horrible names falsely. I'm not saying that you, Chris, never are in the same position. I believe you are. I'm sure you still realize that you're not infallible.
-
I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.
So in other words what you are trying to say is, I have no idea and need time to make something work?
You made it sound in your first reply that you were not taking it to be a counselor and yet your job right now is being a counselor.
You said "Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do" have you ever read the 10 commandments?
You should read the old testament so e time.
-
As a side note visualize an image is same as making one by hand just in your heart. For more on that you should read the new testament
-
I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.
So in other words what you are trying to say is, I have no idea and need time to make something work?
You made it sound in your first reply that you were not taking it to be a counselor and yet your job right now is being a counselor.
You said "Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do" have you ever read the 10 commandments?
You should read the old testament so e time.
What I am admitting to is yes I do have my doubts about the field of psychology and how biblical it is. I want to sort them out first. Beyond that, I know that when I put my reasons why I think some of it is biblically justified, I will essentially be put on trial here and will need to defend them. That is not something I have time nor lots of energy (physical and emotional) to devote deeply to right now.
Are you saying my job as an ABA therapist is like counseling? If so then you have little understanding of either. Just because the word therapist is present does not mean they are the same thing. Just like a physical therapist is not the same as a therapist in the psychological sense.
And yes I have read the 10 Commandments. Currently I am reading the Bible cover to cover. I am in Second Samuel. And yes it is the KJB.
As a side note visualize an image is same as making one by hand just in your heart. For more on that you should read the new testament
The biblical basis for this is what exactly? I am not contesting your point. I would genuinely like to know. It is not really helpful to just tell me to read the New Testament. I believe you are probably talking about Matthew 5 where Jesus talks about committing adultery in the heart. Granted. The same application could be made in my case. Perhaps it is at the least hypocritical of me to rebuke those who have images of Jesus in their house and use that in any way during prayer. Is that why you guys are inferring I am guilty of idolatry? Perhaps you are right. Thankfully I do not always do this in prayer so it should not be hard to correct.
-
I'm not going to disagree with you that naturopathic medicine might be a good direction to head for me in terms of research . While I don't believe diet fixes everything or causes everything, it certainly is a major key factor.
I'm always skeptical when someone says something like "No one heard of - before such and such time." First because I think there is so much that we don't know about some conditions that it is quite ludicrous to point it to one cause. Second, medical diagnostics were not always what they are today. Many conditions have been around for a quite a while but no one knew enough about them to really define them until long after the first recorded cases. Tuberculosis is one. Nevertheless, I am willing to entertain the idea that Alzheimer's hasn't been around that long and am willing to read the research you've found on this if you'd be willing to share.
I'm also a bit skeptical when blanket statements such as "This one thing will cure everyone who has this condition." If not even Tylenol or Ibuprofen work for everyone, why should we reasonably think that anything else (even the natural stuff) will? Especially in a very complex disease like Alzheimer's. However, again, I'm willing to investigate this matter further in the future.
I agree with Jackie on this. For about the last 19.5 centuries even since Christ there has been no such thing as a "cholesterol test" and if people were Godly and wanted to keep in excellent health they just had to eat healthily and not be gluttonous. As Jackie pointed out, many medical conditions were not at all understood and if a person has a genetic problem they can try to maintain good health by eating correctly but it certainly isn't going to cure it.
With every generation we are also going to see more and more ailments coming along. For every generation of man there are between 100 and 300 transcriptional errors in DNA and so long as the person survives after birth they might barely or not at all notice the alterations and then again they might have a terrible and not well understood medical ailment.
Rare Diseases Organization
https://rarediseases.org/for-patients-and-families/information-resources/rare-disease-information/
One thing I forgot to comment about and was in a video via a link that Jeanne sent me was that the claim was made that obesity was caused by a lack of essential nutrients and minerals. That is completely wrong and no mention was made of gluttony being the cause. All of those carbon atoms making up a part of the fats came from somewhere and I can safely comment that it was only via the food that those people were putting in to their mouths. I'm sure God didn't miraculously make those fat molecules appear on their waistlines making them to appear as gluttons. God can make atoms and molecules appear when required such as the gold coin in the mouth of a fish and feeding thousands of people bread and fish, but surely not fat that then makes an innocent person to appear as a sinner. That that statement appeared in the video "rang alarm bells" for me as I knew I couldn't trust anything they were going to say after that.
On the Alzheimers Disease side of things I often work in the Alzheimers lab in keeping their analysis machines working. All of the work they are doing is related to the metabolim of arginine (an amino acid) as the metabolim of arginine in the Alzheimers brain is quite different than in a non-diseased brain. I wouldn't be so quick to point accuse at foods such as food oils as people have been eating roasted peanuts and cashew nuts etc for a very long time. Our department isn't trying to formulate chemicals to deal with disease like that, they are just trying to understand the cause. There are many theories and many people all around the world trying to understand what is happening.
I'm always cautious of "snake oil" sales people. (Colloquial terms always in inverted commas).
-
Jackie I am sorry for my last post. What you read is my outline. I was not finished with it and hit send when I was trying to correct and edit it. Well last 2 post. I cannot get on website it keeps saying timed out. So got long time I been trying to fix it. I finally had to Google the website and go straight to forum.
I am in a 3rd world country and a lot of websites I cannot go like kjb store and so on. One of the benefits of living among people who are equally yoked with dictatorship. So please just forget about what I ask. There is no point for us to start over in this conversation.
Please forgive me of my mistake.
-
Jackie I am sorry for my last post. What you read is my outline. I was not finished with it and hit send when I was trying to correct and edit it. Well last 2 post. I cannot get on website it keeps saying timed out. So got long time I been trying to fix it. I finally had to Google the website and go straight to forum.
I am in a 3rd world country and a lot of websites I cannot go like kjb store and so on. One of the benefits of living among people who are equally yoked with dictatorship. So please just forget about what I ask. There is no point for us to start over in this conversation.
Please forgive me of my mistake.
I am not sure you have got anything to be sorry for. It does not sound like you did anything wrong. I am sure the censorship in your country must be really frustrating. All is well.
-
Kevin, I think you might have missed part of what this particular lecturer was saying about obesity. Yes, gluttony is a part of it, but many of the additives in processed foods (like high fructose corn syrup) actually MAKE people more hungry, so they overeat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the artificial sweetener aspartame does pretty much the same thing; it makes people want to eat more.
I have only been taking some of these supplements for a couple of weeks now, but I can say that I no longer have the sugar cravings I had before, or the urge to snack all day. I can't tell yet whether I have actually lost any weight or not because my scale is broken and replacing the batteries didn't help.
-
Kevin, I think you might have missed part of what this particular lecturer was saying about obesity. Yes, gluttony is a part of it, but many of the additives in processed foods (like high fructose corn syrup) actually MAKE people more hungry, so they overeat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the artificial sweetener aspartame does pretty much the same thing; it makes people want to eat more.
I have only been taking some of these supplements for a couple of weeks now, but I can say that I no longer have the sugar cravings I had before, or the urge to snack all day. I can't tell yet whether I have actually lost any weight or not because my scale is broken and replacing the batteries didn't help.
Hi Jeanne
I'll have to go back and have another look and listen to the wording in the video, but it struck me as being quite incorrect at the time.
Yes, sweet food does make people more hungry because we naturally do crave for sweet food and also because after eating too much sweet food our insulin production causes our blood sugar to fall below the level that it would normally be if we had eaten nothing at all and then that low blood sugar level triggers the feeling of hunger. Sadly people give in to that feeling of hunger and then go and eat something else. That scenario isn't a modern thing though as someone could easily do this by eating grapes and oranges etc and then a short while later feeling ravenous and snacking on a side of lamb.
Yes, aspartame does make people want to eat more. What looked like it might have been promising as a zero calorie product still causes insulin secretion as a result of the sweet sensation in the mouth but alas no digestable food reaches the stomach and that secreted insulin drops the person's blood sugar level and then they eat more than they normally would had they not drunk the artificial sweetener.
On the diet side of things I see lots of products in the supermarket and I wonder who actually buys those, but of course people do otherwise they wouldn't be manufactured and they wouldn't be on the shelf. I buy chocolate occassionally and about ten years ago I had a drink of carbonated drink. The best way to avoid sugar craving is to not eat sweet food but it is important to also limit starch foods like potatoes, peas, bread and rice etc.
For anyone wanting to lose weight it is often best not to step on the scales but rather to go by looseness of clothing and looking in the mirror. Because our body weight can vary so much from day to day that often puts people off and they think their reduced calorie intake isn't working and so they give up. Reduced calorie intake works 100% of the time.
The Bible basically tells us not to eat too much.
-
I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though.
You just admitted that you ignored him in your pride and then turned around in the next sentence and lied by saying that you didn't do it. You won't turn out to be a very good psychologist if you can't even lie convincingly. If you can't catch your own lie you won't catch another's. You basically said, "I shouldn't have ignored you in my pride, but I didn't ignore you in my pride."
I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing.
You did it twice. This isn't just some mistake you made. You just admitted to calling him those things ('unintentionally' at least), then turned around in the next sentence and said you didn't do what you just said you did and that you won't admit to what you just admitted to. I'm not impressed with your college education. The very least they could have taught you is to lie better than that. I mean, if you're going to lie that badly you might as well be honest about it lol. There is literally no excuse for that.
It's not a lack of intelligence that you lied so blatantly. It's because of the pride in your heart. You're so blind in your pride that you didn't even catch that you didn't make any sense there. That can only be explained as a spiritual problem you have.
In your initial post on this matter you claimed that Chris could be 'perceived' as being prideful, arrogant, childish, foolish, and trying to make someone look like an idiot. When I read Chris' response to Leslie about ego in the email, I didn't perceive those things in Chris for saying that at all. So, naturally, I didn't have a problem with it.
But, conveniently, the one person here who says there is some Biblical justification for psychology had a problem with a comment about a psychology term that Freud made up...conveniently. That puzzle isn't hard to put together, and I'm not even a psychologist. It's a 4 piece puzzle at best lol. If you weren't trying to justify something, you wouldn't have said anything. And don't give me that garbage that you only said something because of the way Chris' response could be 'perceived' as prideful and arrogant. If you didn't think in your heart that he was, you wouldn't have said anything about that either. And because you did think that (and in your heart, accuse him of those things) you said something. You're just too afraid to be up front about it and take a stance so you hide behind 'intentions' to avoid responsibility.
I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell...
I'm not convinced you do examine yourself. If you did, then you aught to be terribly ashamed for what you said above. It's very concerning to me that you aren't ashamed. You're lack of taking responsibility for your words shows me a lack of repentance and that shouldn't be taken lightly.
Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing...
But you did lie. See the above. If you truly examine yourself, it'll be pretty easy to see.
Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here?
No one needs you to lie. We're trying to tell you to stop it!
And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to.
When you finally admit to something we'll believe you when you try to say your being straight. But when you can't even lie convincingly, common sense says "We don't believe you!"
Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar.
We've dealt with other people that hide behind "intentions" and it didn't have anything to do with psychology. It's the filthy rag you call a heart we're trying to deal with. Repentance is what you need, not a change of topic.
But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded 'hidden intentions'.
You've been heard and addressed. When are you going to repent?
-
I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though.
You just admitted that you ignored him in your pride and then turned around in the next sentence and lied by saying that you didn't do it. You won't turn out to be a very good psychologist if you can't even lie convincingly. If you can't catch your own lie you won't catch another's. You basically said, "I shouldn't have ignored you in my pride, but I didn't ignore you in my pride."
I was addressing two different scenarios. I was admitting that I ignored him on the God is With Us topic. Chris is accusing me of ignoring something falsely on a different topic. That, I am not admitting to as I've not done what he has accused me of. I guess I didn't make that clear.
I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing.
You did it twice. This isn't just some mistake you made. You just admitted to calling him those things ('unintentionally' at least), then turned around in the next sentence and said you didn't do what you just said you did and that you won't admit to what you just admitted to. I'm not impressed with your college education. The very least they could have taught you is to lie better than that. I mean, if you're going to lie that badly you might as well be honest about it lol. There is literally no excuse for that.
I admitted to calling him those things unintentionally, yes. I'm not admitting to calling him those things intentionally (because I didn't), which is what you would probably like to happen. You can call me a liar, sure. God knows the truth. I was not calling him out as arrogant or childish or any of those things. I said that when he did what I was critiquing him on, he comes across as such.
It's not a lack of intelligence that you lied so blatantly. It's because of the pride in your heart. You're so blind in your pride that you didn't even catch that you didn't make any sense there. That can only be explained as a spiritual problem you have.
It's clear that you will only see me as a liar in this instance. I will again assert that I have not lied. What you are seeing is maybe something you are reading into, falsely.
In your initial post on this matter you claimed that Chris could be 'perceived' as being prideful, arrogant, childish, foolish, and trying to make someone look like an idiot. When I read Chris' response to Leslie about ego in the email, I didn't perceive those things in Chris for saying that at all. So, naturally, I didn't have a problem with it.
You didn't see it, fine. That doesn't make it untrue. Again, I will tell you as I told him. I've been criticized and told that when I take small minute details of a person's argument to me and correct them on it (when what they said has little to do with the overall topic), I've been told it comes across as arrogant and childish. It doesn't matter if I'm right, or if correcting them in that matter is for their ultimate edification. It can still come across as that way.
But, conveniently, the one person here who says there is some Biblical justification for psychology had a problem with a comment about a psychology term that Freud made up...conveniently. That puzzle isn't hard to put together, and I'm not even a psychologist. It's a 4 piece puzzle at best lol. If you weren't trying to justify something, you wouldn't have said anything. And don't give me that garbage that you only said something because of the way Chris' response could be 'perceived' as prideful and arrogant. If you didn't think in your heart that he was, you wouldn't have said anything about that either. And because you did think that (and in your heart, accuse him of those things) you said something. You're just too afraid to be up front about it and take a stance so you hide behind 'intentions' to avoid responsibility.
As I said to Chris before, I knew there would be hang ups about what I had to say because of the association the word "ego" has with psychology. Again, I was not trying to justify that term at all. I don't agree with the concept of ego at all. Just because I know how to differentiate between the definition that Freud gives and the definition most people use, doesn't mean I'm defending the concept.
I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell...
I'm not convinced you do examine yourself. If you did, then you aught to be terribly ashamed for what you said above. It's very concerning to me that you aren't ashamed. You're lack of taking responsibility for your words shows me a lack of repentance and that shouldn't be taken lightly.
I'm not here to convince you that I do examine myself. You don't know me at all, though, so you really can't be sure. God knows.
However, I'm not taking responsibility for something I did not say. Why should I be ashamed for something I didn't do?
Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing...
But you did lie. See the above. If you truly examine yourself, it'll be pretty easy to see.
Except I didn't. You misunderstood what I said. Or read into something, I don't know.
Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here?
No one needs you to lie. We're trying to tell you to stop it!
And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to.
When you finally admit to something we'll believe you when you try to say your being straight. But when you can't even lie convincingly, common sense says "We don't believe you!"
Well, the issue here is misunderstanding what I actually said and trying to make it as though I said something I haven't. That's why I said "And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to."
Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar.
We've dealt with other people that hide behind "intentions" and it didn't have anything to do with psychology. It's the filthy rag you call a heart we're trying to deal with. Repentance is what you need, not a change of topic.
Absolutely. Everyone has a filthy heart and is in need of repentance. Me too. My point is that it's frustrating when people don't stick to the topic at hand because they think they know what's really going on (and they're wrong). You guys have had a lot of opposition, and some of it has been paved with good intentions. I get that.
But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded 'hidden intentions'.
You've been heard and addressed. When are you going to repent?
But was I really? Or was the main focus on setting up a straw man argument against me (claiming that I really just made that post to argue in favor of psychology, and that my real intention is to insult Chris and be in support of railers like Leslie)?
I will not repent of the things that you guys claim I'm doing that I'm not. I do repent that I've caused so much strife and grief by my original post (and subsequent ones).
-
A lot gets thrown in under the term 'psychology'. For example 'cognition'. Cognition isn't a study of a person's "psyche" but because it requires the use of the brain it gets thrown in under 'psychology'. It could be listed under 'neuroscience' but it really doesn't fit too well there either. A few years back I even purchased the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" because it is full of case histories of interesting situations where people have interesting abnormalities in their thinking and cognition. Some were born that way and some are the result of deterioration with age. Some are "savants" and have exceptional ability to remember a whole book after reading it once and others have the ability to remember every conversation they have ever had in their lives. Unfortunately everything like this gets thrown in under 'psychology'.
After an Air New Zealand DC10 crashed in to Mount Erebus in Antarctica in 1979 killing everyone on board one of the other executive pilots who also used to pilot that sightseeing route knew that whatever the captain (and first officer) experienced and what he would have been able to see looking out the front of the aircraft would have also happened to him if he was the one flying the plane that day because they both had about the same skill level as pitots. On leaving Air New Zealand (quitting the job in disgust) he enrolled at Auckland University to study psychology and especially visual psychology because he knew that that was where the answers lay and as a result of that study and his findings he along with others were able to unravel the lies and deception of Air New Zealand and the New Zealand Government (the major shareholder in Air New Zealand) and expose the coverup that was being attempted and what really happened. The judge chosen to head the court of enquiry made the now famous statement in New Zealand that "Air New Zealand and the New Zealand Government are guilty of an orchestrated litany of lies".
Next month is the 40th anniversary of the Mount Erebus crash. Like everyone else I stayed up until after midnight listening to news reports that an Air New Zealand DC10 was missing after a sightseeing flight to Antarctica. The next morning the first thing on the news was that the wreckage had been found. At work everyone was tired and some stayed up even later than I did and we all stood around at work for the whole morning talking and no work got done at all. We all got to see how small New Zealand is because everyone knew someone on the plane or they knew someone who knew someone. I knew a man a few years younger than me and his father was on the plane.
In the end it was a field of 'psychology' that brought truth and justice.
-
I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though.
You just admitted that you ignored him in your pride and then turned around in the next sentence and lied by saying that you didn't do it. You won't turn out to be a very good psychologist if you can't even lie convincingly. If you can't catch your own lie you won't catch another's. You basically said, "I shouldn't have ignored you in my pride, but I didn't ignore you in my pride."
I was addressing two different scenarios. I was admitting that I ignored him on the God is With Us topic. Chris is accusing me of ignoring something falsely on a different topic. That, I am not admitting to as I've not done what he has accused me of. I guess I didn't make that clear.
That was my mistake. I thought you were talking about the same topic when you said that. I'm sorry about that. I should have read that in closer detail.
I admitted to calling him those things unintentionally, yes. I'm not admitting to calling him those things intentionally (because I didn't), which is what you would probably like to happen. You can call me a liar, sure. God knows the truth. I was not calling him out as arrogant or childish or any of those things.
But this is what we are trying to tell you and what you are refusing to admit, even though you're blatantly doing it here. What you're saying is "I'm not sorry for spilling the drink on you because it wasn't my intention." You're hiding behind your intentions to avoid responsibility for your words. That's not how humility works no matter how many times you want to feign apologies of coming off the wrong way.
And yes. God does know the truth, but your pride is getting in the way from you seeing this the way God sees it. That's my concern for you.
This is why Chris has no interest in continuing this with people like you. When you can't admit to something so simple, there's little hope of change without God giving that person repentance to acknowledge the truth. Without God it would truly be impossible.
I have to leave for work so this is all I'm going to say for now.
-
Kevin, do optical illusions really fall under the category of 'psychology', though? I remember reading about the story several years back (after I moved here) and I just looked up that website again. Seems that it involved a phenomenon known as 'sector whiteout' in which an area may look completely flat when it is not. (And, in this case, hid an entire mountain.)
A mirage is a different type of optical illusion, in which a mountain or other large object appears to be suspended in midair, or that hot, dry ground appears to be covered in water.
I fail to see how these optical illusions could be classified as psychological in nature, however.
-
That was my mistake. I thought you were talking about the same topic when you said that. I'm sorry about that. I should have read that in closer detail.
Alright. I'm glad this was cleared up.
But this is what we are trying to tell you and what you are refusing to admit, even though you're blatantly doing it here. What you're saying is "I'm not sorry for spilling the drink on you because it wasn't my intention." You're hiding behind your intentions to avoid responsibility for your words. That's not how humility works no matter how many times you want to feign apologies of coming off the wrong way.
No. What I'm saying is more like "I'm sorry for spilling the drink on you on accident. You're accusing me of purposefully doing it. But I'm not owning up to doing it on purpose because I didn't do it on purpose." You're accusing me of purposefully doing it and are trying to get me to agree with you that I purposefully did it. And I'm really starting to wonder why? I mean, I know what reason will be given. You think I'm lying and that I had the secret intention of insulting and railing on Chris. And that I'm lying about not caring that it was the word "ego" he singled out. I've already told you that I'm not lying about either. Repeatedly trying to get me to confess a sin I haven't committed might be showing a lack of discernment on your part.
I don't presume to know Chris well enough to make such a harsh judgment on his character as a whole. Or his motivations for what he does.
And yes. God does know the truth, but your pride is getting in the way from you seeing this the way God sees it. That's my concern for you.
I realize pride can often be a blinder to the truth, which is why I am making sure to ask God to reveal to me any pride I might have. It is likely a bit of pride that is driving me to keep trying to convince you guys that the accusations against me are false. But I know ultimately that I can't do that. Only God can convince anyone of anything (when it comes to truth). I'll have to let the hurt from all of the potentially railing accusations and words go. I say "potentially railing" as I'm still learning the full implications and applications of the word "railing". And I'm calling for a heart check on you guys, so you guys can make sure that there is no sinful motive or action in you all (in regards to this issue).
This is why Chris has no interest in continuing this with people like you. When you can't admit to something so simple, there's little hope of change without God giving that person repentance to acknowledge the truth. Without God it would truly be impossible.
Agreed. Without God, repentance is impossible. The fact that I won't confess to something I didn't do is not an indication of a lack of repentance. Why would I confess a sin I didn't commit? How crazy would that be?
Anyways, I hope that you had a good, productive day at work and that neither this issue nor any others weighed too heavily on your mind during it.
-
Kevin, do optical illusions really fall under the category of 'psychology', though? I remember reading about the story several years back (after I moved here) and I just looked up that website again. Seems that it involved a phenomenon known as 'sector whiteout' in which an area may look completely flat when it is not. (And, in this case, hid an entire mountain.)
A mirage is a different type of optical illusion, in which a mountain or other large object appears to be suspended in midair, or that hot, dry ground appears to be covered in water.
I fail to see how these optical illusions could be classified as psychological in nature, however.
That is why there is a bit of a problem with everything being lumped in under psychology.
On that DC10 crash it wasn't just a problem of whiteout. The co-ordinates in the flight computer had been changed overnight without the pilot being notified and the new route put the plane on a direct collision course with Mount Erebus. What the pilots were seeing out the front of the aircraft was exactly what they should have been seeing but it was a different location that looked exactly the same ..... except for a big mountain in the way.
On the topic of everything being thrown in under psychology even the layout of the pilot's instrument panel comes under psychology as does things like evacuation procedures. For fast evacuation of aircraft the designers use psychology to understand how people think when they are under extreme stress and fear to make it as easy and fast for them to get off a plane.
All of this stuff is of course a long way off from the rubbish that came out from people like Freud but sadly the whole lot gets lumped in under psychology because it has an association with the brain and the way people think and perceive and behave.
-
A mirage is a different type of optical illusion, in which a mountain or other large object appears to be suspended in midair, or that hot, dry ground appears to be covered in water.
I fail to see how these optical illusions could be classified as psychological in nature, however.
I meant to comment on this. This isn't an optical illusion as these are just the physics of light due to temperature and differing densities of air.
-
I meant to comment on this. This isn't an optical illusion as these are just the physics of light due to temperature and differing densities of air.
Isn't that pretty much what sector whiteout is, too?
-
I meant to comment on this. This isn't an optical illusion as these are just the physics of light due to temperature and differing densities of air.
Isn't that pretty much what sector whiteout is, too?
Yes it is, but the problem with the visual the pilots saw when looking down the Ross Sea to McMurdo Sound (which wasn't where they were) was exactly what they expected to see but the mountain that would have been a dead giveaway that they were in the wrong location and that something was seriously wrong was obscured by snow whiteout and all of the rest of the scenario was clear sky and they could see the cliffs in the distance etc just as they expected to see. The cliffs they were looking at were Ross Island and at the distance they were they looked exactly the same as the cliffs down McMurdo Sound.
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1256773808/501/3010501.jpg)
This is sort of a bit out of place in the forum but it does again show the dishonesty that some are prepared to sink to. When the very first crash investigator team got to the wreckage by helicopter to check for possible survivors they found after some time that they can not have been the first at the crash site. Key pieces of evidence were already missing. The captain had a big family atlas that he took with him and had even marked their route in it and it was never found even though everything else was and also his ring binder of flight notes was found in the snow closed correctly but all of the pages were mysteriously missing. The only ones with transport and survival gear etc to get in to a mountainous and inhospitable place like that within a day or two typically would have been special forces soldiers. Meanwhile the captain's house was being "burgled" while his grieving wife wasn't home and all documentation relevant to Air New Zealand operations was stolen.
-
Wow!
I think I might have heard about this in a podcast that I was listening to. Key evidence was missing?? Interesting! Thanks for sharing this. I would think they would have had enough good orientation to know they had gone in a type of circle, but I will never get a chance to fly a plane and understand how that works, so I could be wrong here.
-
What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
We discussed Jackie's first posts together over Skype last night; figured someone would say something about that.
-
What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
Why do they have to stick to the topic at hand?
We discussed Jackie's first posts together over Skype last night; figured someone would say something about that.
Perhaps they are taking cues from you to just ignore me?
-
I am sorry for my role in derailing the topic of this thread. I should have started a separate discussion to address the things that were not related to the subject here.
Jackie,
How do expect someone to understand a bigger issue (repentance and the truth of Christ) when they cannot even be corrected on a little one (use of the word "ego" and the psychology behind it)? Do you honestly think that is what led this man to ignore his response? I doubt it. It is apparent he has a lot of problems in his heart that need worked out first, and while Christopher did his best to show him his errors, it is up to God to open his eyes to the truth.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Matthew 13:13-15 KJB
-
Jackie,
How do expect someone to understand a bigger issue (repentance and the truth of Christ) when they cannot even be corrected on a little one (use of the word "ego" and the psychology behind it)? Do you honestly think that is what led this man to ignore his response? I doubt it. It is apparent he has a lot of problems in his heart that need worked out first, and while Christopher did his best to show him his errors, it is up to God to open his eyes to the truth.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Matthew 13:13-15 KJB
You make a good point, Laura. Leslie definitely had much deeper issues going on. He was already incensed. Which is why I wasn't defending him specifically. That's also why I didn't address the main point of Leslie's post. I wasn't there to refute nor defend what he was saying. Just pointing out that it generally doesn't help to correct someone on a minor issue when you're discussing a separate bigger issue.
Think of it this way. You're in an argument with someone about something, and you make a grammatical error. That other person decides to correct you on it. Pretty irritating, right? It may be good to correct someone on their grammatical errors, but perhaps not in a heated argument (or during an intense discussion). Pride is often the motivation behind such corrections.
Or, perhaps this is a better example. You are arguing with someone you don't know (so you lack the benefit of knowing the person and how to best respond to them in a way that would help them best). That person, perhaps trying to be dismissive of your point of view, says "You're just so lucky that you haven't been through what I have". Is it really going to help that person in that moment to point out to them that luck doesn't exist and is derived from false belief systems? Or is it perhaps more prudent to just address statement as a whole and any underlying issues that person might be having? Again, pride is often the motivation behind such corrections.
-
Perhaps they are taking cues from you to just ignore me?
And again, this is more evidence of your railing accusations, verbally slapping everyone here in the face without any justification (especially those who have tried to talk with you), which is why we can't hardly have a rational discussion with you. If anything, as of now, you're living proof that my book on psychology is correct because you have not given account and taken responsibility for your accusations, and you won't confess your sin.
If you want to come to a Skype call on a Thursday night to discuss this with all of us to try and work this out for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, I'll invite you, and I assure you, we will not treat you in the contemptuous manner you have treated me on this matter. However, you have got to stop the childish, passive aggressive (i.e. murmuring) slap-and-run comments like this because, as of right now, I am not seeing any evidence of the grief and godly sorrow you claimed (in your introduction post) to have had when you were saved because you are feigning humility in your posts.
murmur (n): a complaint half suppressed, or uttered in a low, muttering voice
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
-1Co 10:10
-
What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
We discussed Jackie's first posts together over Skype last night; figured someone would say something about that.
The only reason I left it under the heading of psychology was because there are some valid areas that come under psychology. I was looking to see what Jackie's responses would be with regards to any particular area of psychology she might mainly be interested in and in that regard it still fitted in with the main topic.
I should have started a different thread.
-
Perhaps they are taking cues from you to just ignore me?
And again, this is more evidence of your railing accusations, verbally slapping everyone here in the face without any justification (especially those who have tried to talk with you), which is why we can't hardly have a rational discussion with you. If anything, as of now, you're living proof that my book on psychology is correct because you have not given account and taken responsibility for your accusations, and you won't confess your sin.
After some introspection and prayer, God has revealed to me that you're quite right. I am guilty of unintentional and intentional railing accusations. Namely with the murmuring and passive aggressivism (I'm dividing them since I see the murmuring as the action and the passive aggressivism as the intent). I'll admit I was frustrated to hear about the discussion about what I said without me present. I assumed you guys were all trying to do that in order to just completely blast my position on things and puff yourselves up with "Look how we're right completely." But you're right. People have been trying to talk to me about it here, and it's also not like you guys have banned me and deleted or altered my posts so that no one could see both sides of the issue. I'm sorry for letting my pride and anger get in the way. I'm sorry to God for that too, as that doesn't bring Him any glory.
The unintentional railing accusations I'm guilty of are the calling you "arrogant, childish, etc etc". After the introspection and prayer, I can see that yes I did have some prior inclinations that you were those things, despite my best efforts to not hold those opinions. I don't know you, and it's hard to discern tone of voice or motivation of a person over written text. I'm sorry that I judged rashly, unfairly, without knowing the facts, and wrongly. I still hold to what I said at first, that correcting someone over a tiny detail that has nothing to do with the argument can be seen as prideful, and indeed can be done in pride. This is because of, again, my personal experience with the matter (both me doing it intentionally out of pride, and me doing it not with pride but the other person sees it that way). But I am sorry for thinking you were prideful in any sense, and I'm sorry to you, myself, and God that I tried suppressing that opinion.
I thank God that He has made me aware of what I've done wrong.
I'm also sorry for creating all my responses in the heat of anger, instead of perhaps waiting until I was more tempered and could think and respond more rationally. I also did it without trying to put myself into the shoes of the other person to understand their motives properly.
Admittedly, I still don't appreciate being called a liar without justification. Not so much on the hiding behind my intentions when calling you arrogant and those other things, because the denial of my opinion could be considered a form of lying, I think. It's at least hurtful to the other person when you don't own up to doing that. But on the accusation that I picked a fight (so to speak) over the word "ego" because I wanted to defend Freud's theory of the ego, and psychology as a whole. No, that's not true. Maybe my attention was drawn because it was the word "ego" and I'm familiar with Freud's work (and perhaps I agreed with Leslie on some level). Granted. But no that's not why I was attempting to help you. You have your opinion that all those who are involved with psychology do is lie and continually deny their responsibility for their sin (and teach others to do likewise). I hope that isn't blinding you to the truth of the matter. I also don't appreciate that it seems like to you, because I study psychology that I'm automatically of the devil, too (correct me if I'm wrong and this isn't what you think, or that it's not as simplistic as that).
Nor do I appreciate being called a supporter of railers (Leslie) because I assumed to understand what he meant (which, I will remind you out of charity, so did you. And it seems we both assumed the same thing without asking Leslie, unless I'm mistaken) when he used that word and I addressed his use of the word. Again, that is why I didn't address his post as a whole, as it really didn't matter to me whether it was his e-mail or someone else's.
If you want to come to a Skype call on a Thursday night to discuss this with all of us to try and work this out for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, I'll invite you, and I assure you, we will not treat you in the contemptuous manner you have treated me on this matter. However, you have got to stop the childish, passive aggressive (i.e. murmuring) slap-and-run comments like this because, as of right now, I am not seeing any evidence of the grief and godly sorrow you claimed (in your introduction post) to have had when you were saved because you are feigning humility in your posts.
murmur (n): a complaint half suppressed, or uttered in a low, muttering voice
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
-1Co 10:10
Also your invitation to the Thursday night Skype calls is making me see how irrational I was being. I'll have to at this point politely decline the invitation as I work Thursday nights. I really only needed to know that you weren't purposefully trying to not include me on a discussion, anyways. However, even if I was right and that's what you were doing, I still shouldn't be making generalized, slap-and-run comments. Especially not without knowing the facts for sure and also checking myself for pride. I am sorry for acting contemptuously and irrationally. I know words said with contempt can be personally hurtful. And I won't deny that perhaps I did that on purpose to incite a reaction. I'm disgusted with myself, knowing that I like to manipulate in that way.
-
Hi Jackie,
I have been away for a while and it was quite some time before I could read everything and get an idea of what was going on.
All anyone here would ask of you is to repent in grief and godly sorrow, and then listen to what is being taught from the Word of God and allowing the Lord to show you the wisdom of it. I hope you will do that before saying anything more. I had to do this myself. So has each person here who decided to become a part of the church.
Welcome and I hope you will get rid of any anger and malice and study to show yourself approved, especially in the psychology issue. Our world is being duped and they don't even care. I am saddened by it all.
-
Then let's figure out another day to meet on Skype, and we'll get as many of us on as we can. If you're willing to discuss this matter with us, I don't see any reason that we should accommodate you as much as we can.
-
Then let's figure out another day to meet on Skype, and we'll get as many of us on as we can. If you're willing to discuss this matter with us, I don't see any reason that we should accommodate you as much as we can.
Chris, pardon me if I'm overstepping here, but I'm assuming you meant that you don't see any reason why we SHOULDN'T accommodate Jackie.
-
Yep, that was a typo; I was in the middle of working on other things and didn't double check.
-
So... I guess we're not doing this? We were told that the time was not good for her, and there has been nothing else posted since. Maybe I'm just an odd person that believes those who claim to be of Christ should be held accountable for what they say, and reconciliation should take priority, but, I guess unity in the Spirit among brethren is just phrase of convenience?
-
I agree with Chris. I hope there is a reasonable explanation this has not been set up yet, but it is likely not the case. That is very sad.
-
If someone don't have time to stop and think why they are getting a degree and what they are going to use it for, I hardly think they will have time to explain themselves.
-
If someone don't have time to stop and think why they are getting a degree and what they are going to use it for, I hardly think they will have time to explain themselves.
How is that fair to Jackie? Did you ever lack understanding at one time? I also have done many foolish things because of my ignorance. I'll sharply rebuke Jackie for her unbridled tongue, but we ought to be always ready to give grace at the first sign of repentance.
-
She logged in at 7.30 (her time) last night (Thursday), so I'm sure she at least saw what Chris posted. I don't know why she hasn't replied, though. Maybe she was just reading from work...
-
Just logging in doesn't mean much. If you read her earlier posts, she said she was busy Thursday nights, so she may not have read anything.
-
My last post was foolish. Now thinking about it, I do not even know why I even said that.
-
Our group is usually gracious and demonstrate God's Mercy when people are repentant. I hope Jackie will meet with us.
-
Me too, but it's starting to look less likely. I hope it's just because she's been busy rather than that she's decided not to do it after all.
-
After a week, Jackie has logged in multiple times and said nothing. I'm not sure what to think now.
-
Hi, guys. Yes, I'm still around. I've just had a lot going on in various aspects of my life that has lately even been taking a small toll on my physical health. So I had that to address first.
So... I guess we're not doing this? We were told that the time was not good for her, and there has been nothing else posted since. Maybe I'm just an odd person that believes those who claim to be of Christ should be held accountable for what they say, and reconciliation should take priority, but, I guess unity in the Spirit among brethren is just phrase of convenience?
I agree that those who claim to be of Christ should answer for the things they say and do. Reconciliation is also crucial. I can't help but be a little hurt by what you seem to be implying here, Chris. That I don't care about unity in the Spirit among brethren. I don't blame you for thinking that of me, though. I mean, I probably would think the same if I was trying to reconcile with someone online and then they just stopped talking without explanation.
I want to restate to you that I am sorry for my unbridled tongue (which I'm pretty sure speaking with an unbridled tongue is sin), and for calling you arrogant and many other things (whether with intention or not). I spoke in ignorance and with rashness. I'm sorry. I hope I can be forgiven...
I'm ashamed at this whole matter and what I did. I'm glad that I was called out on where I was wrong. Seriously, I am.
Our group is usually gracious and demonstrate God's Mercy when people are repentant. I hope Jackie will meet with us.
Me too, but it's starting to look less likely. I hope it's just because she's been busy rather than that she's decided not to do it after all.
Thanks, guys, for being willing to accommodate me and by being willing to chat with me via Skype at a time that works for me. I'm sure I've caused lots of confusion by not setting up a time sooner. As I said before, I've had a lot going on the past week and a half or so since I was last on this thread (which is why I was only able to pop in and read some posts all over the forum from time to time, though not any on this thread. I've only just seen the recent posts on this thread tonight).
I admit to being wrong in assuming that there was any attempt to have a discussion of what I said without me present (like, on purpose, to make me look bad or something). I'm sorry for that.
I'm also sorry for hurting anyone else on this forum in any way. If there's something wrong I've done against any of you that I may not be aware of, I humbly ask that you tell me so I can be aware of it in the future.
If it's alright, I'd really like to not join a Skype call, for now. I'm overwhelmed with many things going on right now, and I've been made physically sick about some of it. Some of these things I've been dealing with also take up a significant portion of my time. Please don't misunderstand. I consider reconciliation to be important, and it would be a delight to meet some of you face to face (even if when I do, I am being rebuked or held accountable for something). I am hoping that my apology in this post might be enough for reconciliation to happen (or begin at the very least). If not, however, I will try and make a Skype call a priority, if you guys think that it will be profitable.
-
I agree that those who claim to be of Christ should answer for the things they say and do. Reconciliation is also crucial. I can't help but be a little hurt by what you seem to be implying here, Chris. That I don't care about unity in the Spirit among brethren. I don't blame you for thinking that of me, though. I mean, I probably would think the same if I was trying to reconcile with someone online and then they just stopped talking without explanation.
I want to restate to you that I am sorry for my unbridled tongue (which I'm pretty sure speaking with an unbridled tongue is sin), and for calling you arrogant and many other things (whether with intention or not). I spoke in ignorance and with rashness. I'm sorry. I hope I can be forgiven...
I'm ashamed at this whole matter and what I did. I'm glad that I was called out on where I was wrong. Seriously, I am.
I am sorry that I was so firm with you, and I am overjoyed to hear those things, and I am more than willing to forget any words that were spoken in this thread. Would you still be willing to meet with us on Skype? Except this time, instead of reconciliation, can we meet simply for the purpose of talking with you? I think that would be a joy just to fellowship with you. Would everyone else be open to doing that? I mean, only if you can spare the time Jackie; I know you're quite busy right now.
If no one is in objection to it, could you give us a date/time you could talk with us for a bit? It doesn't have to be long.
-
I have no objection whatsoever. But Chris, you and Lorraine are going to be busy for the next week, too, with your trip, so I think any conversation over Skype would have to wait until you get back anyway, so let's see what Jackie's situation is like after you get home.
-
Jackie, I am so glad to hear from you and that you are repentant. I know I would enjoy getting to meet and talk with you, like Chris said!
-
Neil Anderson has some good videos on this topic. I do feel like somethings in psychology are bogus, but also seem true. But what do I know? I'm just a dork with a laptop.
-
Clinton, why do you keep referring people to other teachings on a topic without reading what is on THIS website to see what we believe, first? Your feelings (and those of others) are irrelevant to what the Bible says. Chris wrote an entire book on the subject of psychology/psychiatry which can be found here:
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/psychology.php
-
Neil Anderson has some good videos on this topic. I do feel like somethings in psychology are bogus, but also seem true. But what do I know? I'm just a dork with a laptop.
Jeanne's right; that was an odd comment. It had nothing to do with the context of what was being said.
-
Yes, Jackie, it would be wonderful to be able to meet you on Skype :-)
You will like our group :-)