Chris, I am going to be upfront with you here and get to my point. Taking a single word that someone has said and using it to more or less dismantle their argument, make them look like an ignorant idiot, or make you look better than they are is a foolish debate or discussion move.
Jackie, I'm going to be upfront with you here and say that I've been expecting this from you for a while now. I just could not know if this was going to happen here, or if you were going to leave and just not come back to discuss anything with us. I know your irritation has been growing since you've been here because many of things that I teach go against some of the philosophies you've adopted from the world. So let's make sure we preface that fact before we continue this discussion.
I am sure you have been expecting it. I sure hope you have, as this is a forum, and that is what forums are for. Discussions, even over disagreements. Not just agreeing completely on everything, especially where the Bible is silent or vague. But I'm not here to discuss every disagreement we have. I'm not even here to discuss the disagreements we have regarding psychology, and I think if you take a look at my post and what I specifically said, you will see that.
It comes across as exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish. It turns off hope of rational discussion. I am certain you just did not like his choice of the word ego and wanted to show to him your distaste for any association with Sigmund Freud (I am not here to challenge your opinion of Freud. Just pointing out an observation). It comes off like you think you are a know it all when you make statements like that and then link your own article as a reference.
Jackie, ego doesn't exist, no matter how much you want to imply that it does.
I never said it did. I'm not here to argue the existence of any psychological theory. I mentioned how that term is understood in psychoanalytics to get you to see that that probably isn't what Leslie meant when he said "ego".
Allow me to reinsert exactly what I said here:
"The psychoanalytic definition that Freud gave it is this: the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity. Now certainly this definition is similar to the way that Leslie was trying to use this word. He was using the word to mean that you held yourself in a prideful view. But view of oneself is not the all encompassing psychoanalytic meaning of the term ego. It is much more than that as I am sure you know."
I was trying to just state the psychoanalytic definition of that term. That's all. You can assume that just because I study psychology that I subscribe to Freud's theory of the "Id", the "ego", and the "superego." This is an incorrect assumption. As a believer in what God says about these things, I couldn't even if I wanted to (and I don't). I reject many of Freud's theories in general because they don't line up with Scripture. You'd have to read into what I said to think that I was advocating for the existence of an ego as Freud defines it.
What you're asking me to do is just assume what Leslie wanted to convey to me, especially with a word that represents something that does not exist. This is not an "opinion about Freud," but you would like to believe that's just my opinion, so you can justify what you're doing with your life, instead of making a sacrifice for the Lord Jesus Christ. My intention was to be silent on this matter with you, and just be patient and wait, but when you're going to jump up like this and offer a rebuke based on your personal feelings about the corrupt psychology of the Devil, which you study on a regular basis, in which you are actually responding to this thread in selfishness, trying to justify yourself, rather than edify or correct anyone for their sakes, then I'm going to have to rebuke you too.
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.
Also the word ego generally just means the following: I or self. In modern definitions it means ones sense of oneself.
To be aware of oneself is called consciousness. Ego does not exist, and the application of the concept in psychology does nothing but cover up the sins of wicked people, and all you are doing is repeating the corrupt education you are taking in from the university you attend to get your masters in psychology.
[/quote]
Again, I'm not arguing for the existence of the ego. I'm well aware that people utilize this theory and similar theories to justify sin some of the time. All I did was define the term to point out how Leslie was likely not utilizing it. Never said it was something that's true or that existed. I am sorry if I did not make that clear, or if I implied that in any way. It's like when people say "Good luck". Yes, luck doesn't exist. Yes, the concept of luck is wicked in origin and in actual application. No, the person who says that phrase is not always a practitioner of a religion or philosophy that believes in luck. Yes, it is sometimes a good idea to correct that person. But not always. And it might not be a good idea to correct that person when they are already in an emotionally charged discussion with you. That's where it looks like arrogance (and I am not saying you are being arrogant. I'm just stating how it may be perceived). Think about it. You likely know what they meant when they said that phrase. If the topic that you're discussing overall has nothing to do with that phrase, and correcting them on that phrase would lead to nothing productive, why do it, in that instance? There's a time and place.
Furthermore, an ego is meant to be a sense of self-importance, which is pride (i.e. sin), not some made-up term presented by Freud.
I will agree that the term "ego" in the way it was used in the original e-mail was a term used in place of the word "pride". I'm not here to judge if that was a good word to use or not. Again, I'm not arguing if the term Freud made is an actual thing or not. I just provided a definition.
You're here among Christians, not in a worldly college filled with false doctrines and corruptions, so please come here with understanding of God's Word, not with the rudiments (i.e. principles) of the world.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Col 2:8
You have made the incorrect assumption that I've come to justify psychology (and Freud in particular). Again, that is not the case. I apologize if I gave any indication of that. Please do not dismiss what I have to say because of an incorrect assumption. I'm not saying that you are rejecting my whole point because of this. But you are, in fact, creating a straw man fallacy, and making it as though I have said things that I have not said.
Yes, I do study psychology and think there is biblical justification for some of it. But I do not wish to engage in discussion on that matter at the moment. I'm just admitting that I do think there is biblical justification for your sake, so that you won't think I'm trying to hide something.
The unconscious mind does not exist Jackie. You simply believe that it does because you have to. You do not believe the Scripture on these matters because you have to turn to the world to get their education about things that they cannot understand.
I wasn't arguing for the existence of the unconscious mind. Not all psychologists or students of psychology believe it does. In fact, there are whole theories, subjects, groups, or schools of thought that reject that idea. Perhaps it is a little too bold to make an incorrect wide brush statement like that.
When you said "
now certainly this definition is similar to the way that Leslies was trying to use the word," is
YOUR ASSUMPTION of what Leslie was talking about. That means, you're
ASSUMING what you want it to mean, instead of getting him to explain it in his own words. That is the definition of arrogance because arrogance begins with presumption, and through your presumption, you are defending a railer who had no interest in discussion in the first place, and likely did not even read my response to him
[/quote]
You are perhaps correct. I may have presumed prematurely what Leslie meant. I did assume that what he meant was "arrogant" or "prideful". But so did you when you said near the end of the post "claimed I am prideful and arrogant (which is your comment about "ego")". You also did not ask him what he meant by his words. So why is it that I must? I may be in the wrong for making an assumption without asking. But if I am, so are you.
Also, while I understand that you think I wish to defend him. But I fail to see how giving you a critique on how to better communicate with people instead of completely and quickly shutting off rationality and meaningful discussion automatically means I'm defending Leslie.
you are now speaking on his behalf, and it's only for the sake of your pride in the profession you chose because you poured so much money into it, and sacrificing that money and time for the sake of Christ is too high of a price, isn't it? It's no wonder you need me to seem "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish," because it makes you feel better about yourself and the corrupt path you have chosen for your education and career.
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. I simply said, and meant, that when you do something like that, that is how it comes across. And again, that comes from critiques I've gotten when I have done something similar. But if you want to assume that I'm trying to justify my future profession (of which you have no idea what I plan to do with my degree. You just assume I'm going into counseling. But just as not all medical students become general practitioners, not all psychology students go into counseling), you can. It sounds a little hypocritical, though, when you accuse me of assuming without knowing all the facts.
sacrificing that money and time for the sake of Christ is too high of a price
I understand your heart in using harsh phrasing. I appreciate that you want me sound in the faith. But in all honesty, you don't know me. Again, I don't want to discuss my views on the field or biblical justification for it. But I just wanted to remind you that you do not know me at all. Granted, perhaps you've dialogued with enough people that you think you can accurately profile someone. But it's not quite fair to do that before you have all the facts. Nor is it wise. Still, I will ponder what you have said there, as I should with all rebuke.
By the way, interestingly Freud used the word Ich, which is Austrian/German for I. It was a translator who selected the Latin word ego. I wonder if you would have had the same reaction if Leslie had said he had never seen a person with as big a sense of I (or myself) as you. Surely you would not say that a persons opinion of themselves does not exist, at the least.
That's very interesting Jackie, because I have recently been accused of being "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish," because that same person told me that I was, "Taking a single word that someone has said and using it to more or less dismantle their argument, make them look like an ignorant idiot, or make you look better than they are," and I was also told that it was "a foolish debate or discussion move." Does that sound familiar?
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-Mat 7:2-5
Fair enough point. I do sound a little hypocritical here. Not trying to justify what I said in that quote, but I hope I can clarify a bit. I was trying to emphasize the point that the word "ego" doesn't automatically have to be talking about or have any associations with Freud's use of it. Using that word to be synonymous with "pride" or "arrogance" may not warrant rebuke. I tried to do that by showing that the original word Freud used was the Austrian/German word for "I", which is "Ich" (since Freud didn't speak English naturally and he chose not to use the Latin).
I may sound sharp in my reply, but I am not trying to be rude. I just want to be to the point since you seem to respond best to that.
I certainly do, and appreciate that. I also may sound sharp in my reply, but I am not trying to be rude. I just want to be to the point that you might be sound in the faith in Christ:
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1Ti 5:20
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
-Tts 1:13[/quote]
I appreciate your rebuke, too. Not sure if my application of Proverbs 27:6 is correct. But I do think it is useful to remind us how useful rebuke is.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
The entirety of Leslie's letter was not about the link I gave him on psychology, but rather, it was about the topic incorporating, which is a topic you never mentioned once in your reply.
Since I read the entire exchange, I know fully what the topic of discussion was. I saw no point in mentioning it in my reply, since that's not what I was talking about. It would have been superfluous. I don't know if you were expecting me to just agree with your side of the exchange and be on my merry way. Perhaps you were just expecting an opinion of any kind from me on the matter. Perhaps you weren't expecting a critique (which is fine. I mean, being critiqued, even in a hopefully charitable and gracious, if frank, way is no fun).
I only corrected him on that because I could not fully discern what he was trying to allude to
You did eventually seem to come to a conclusion. It seems you and I reached the same one about how he used that word based on the entirety of what he said, though I may be wrong and am open to correction.
and he is the one responsible for the words he uses, not you. The fact that you took that one sentence, and harped on that in your entire response, revealed your heart on this matter:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Mat 12:36
Clearly my heart wasn't revealed if you came to the wrong conclusion. Picking out words or phrases that have nothing to do with the topic and correcting the person on that is something I have seen you and others here do quite a bit. Yes, I may have decided to finally say what's on my mind regarding that over this word. Yes, part of that may be because I am familiar with Freud's work and his use of the word versus how it is generally used in colloquial speech. I fully admit that. That, however, does not mean I am trying to justify Freud, the ego, the unconscious, psychology, or anything related in this case. It also does not mean that I am trying to justify Leslie or myself. That is what we call reading into things. I hope that I have not done the same to you, and I apologize if I have. I am trying not to.
I know what you're trying to justify, and if an idiot like me can figure it out, you better believe God knows it intimately. You will not be able to hide it when you stand before Him:
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Pro 14:12
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15
You're right. I won't be able to hide any deceit in my heart from God. That is not the case here, thankfully.
You cannot serve God and serve the Devil's psychological field at the same time. You have to choose one. Lukewarmness is nothing more than departing from God.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?... So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
-Luke 14:26-33
I hear you on this, but I'm not having that discussion with you right now, as I have said repeatedly. Just want to let you see that I'm not ignoring that last part. I appreciate your thoughts on lukewarmness.
